Learning Curve

As, many of you know I am a teacher and therefore I study education and knowledge. The point of being a teacher is that you create and disseminate knowledge. My job depends on the transfer of knowledge. This means that knowledge comes from somewhere and gets transferred to another place (my lessons to their brains). There are a number of perspectives about knowledge. We can have moral knowledge, aesthetic knowledge, factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Each of these is learned experientially.

There is a missing type of knowledge though; it rarely gets attention or is studied academically. The one that is missing is innate knowledge. As a teacher, I believed that knowledge is gained through experience. For a student to learn, for anyone to learn something, they need to read it, hear it, and ultimately experience it (a teacher generates learning experiences for their students). Basically, my senses interpret the outside world and put it in my head and learning takes places and knowledge is gained. The point of having knowledge that just exists is ludicrous and defies logic.

But this account of knowledge building does not account for a priori knowledge. I know there are reflexes. (Reflexes aren’t vis-à-vis knowledge; they are more mechanical than anything) The question can be: how can you learn something, if you don’t perceive it through your senses? Innate knowledge did not compute for me because, I know, that knowledge is a learned experience that comes from the outside in. How can a person know something without ever experiencing it?

The interesting part about innate knowledge is where does it come from. Why did this flood of reflection come over me? Well, I never heard a baby coo before; what is a coo? I’ve seen the word in books, but when I heard my son coo, I knew instantly what it was. Instant exhilaration swept through me, even though the coo lasted for a second. That sound is in my memory. Somehow, I knew what it was.

Having a child makes you think and see things differently. Maybe there is a store of knowledge in my head that I am unaware of. It makes you think how does it get in your head. DNA can only contain a finite about of information, how does innate knowledge transfer? It defies the whole notion of a priori. I guess it is like Bluetooth; I don’t know how it works, but it does and I am amazed and grateful that it does.

What Does Forgiveness Really Mean?

The word ‘forgiveness’ is used often. I wonder if people really have thought about what it means? It seems to be a word that stands in for a concept that is assumed to be universally understood by all who utter it. After I read the essay titled Forgivers Assesmble! by Daniel Malloy, I decided to explore the notion of ‘forgiveness’.

To look at ‘forgiveness’, we need to know when it is used. The action of forgiving occurs when a person chooses to “stop feeling resentment and anger for an offence, flaw, or mistake”, according to the mac dictionary on my computer. The act of forgiveness is anaclitic and dependent on the person who received an effect from an “offence, flaw or mistake”. We need to break this up more to understand the morass of ‘forgiveness’.

Actions

The actions of individuals often have unintended consequences. I liked the book How Life Imitates Chess by Garry Kasparov. In it, he explains how life is complex and needs constant assessment to make informed judgments about the future. I have enjoyed playing chess, but my moves are never fully planned out. Making decisions and acting out on them, is the essence of living in a society.

It seems that when people act, they cannot see all outcomes. I assume people have the best intentions when they act. It is hard to think that people would willingly and consciously make life-moves that will result in malfeasance.

I have learned from comics that all people have a choice in their actions. To me, it seems that people will always try to perform actions that will always be towards the good. This brings up what is “good” and what can qualify as a “good act”. Philosophy has two theories: consequentialism, which states that a good act depends on the result and deontology, which relies on actions and one’s duty. This perspective will guide one’s actions. An individual will have to choose which method is more important. (Like most things, there is a gray area and people can change methods)

Persons

The way a person acts relies on their view of the outcome. Some people will look at the end result and determine that that matters more than anything else. Most people quote Machiavelli as saying that the “ends justify the means”. I don’t know if this is correct (I never read The Prince). Alternatively, people may act out of a sense of duty and act accordingly. A person may think that standing by principles is more important than the effects of those choices. The important concept is that either view cannot be dictated and forced as a method of decision-making.

Either view may lead to a need for forgiveness. If a person acts through ether mechanism, they may offend or make mistakes to a person-reciever. When the responsibility of forgiveness is on the receiver, the action-taker cannot have control of the situation (I think this is why nihilists choose nihilism). If we assume most people want to do well or at least avoid harm, the ability to forgive becomes important, if relationships are to be maintained.

Perception

What if the receiver’s perception is not the same as the action-taker? For example, when a business cannot give a worker a raise because there are not enough funds, the perception of the employee is that the business does not value them (or else they would pay the individual more).

Perception definitely cannot be controlled for. There is no way to ensure that a receiver will accept an action the way an action-taker intended. This is the same problem as asking- “is the glass half empty or half full?” People see things differently.

How are different perceptions rectified?

The onus of responsibility

Who has the responsibility to ensure that both parties are on the same page? I think we have to determine if both parties want to be on the same page first.  One way to determine if both parties are on the same page is to know if the action-taker is repentant for the “offence, flaw, or mistake”. Often, this may just be as simple as having open communication of the other’s perception. The key is that both parties can recognize the same goal. People may never agree, but when both ideals are recognized and acknowledged as valid, forgiveness can begin.

When forgiveness is appropriate and when it is not

If an action is permanent, can it be forgiven? Does the ability to forgive make a person a strong person or a weak person? Jacques Derrida brought this up in his essay On Forgiveness. Some might say that it depends on the action; maybe some things truly are unforgivable. Can a person serve enough punishment for a wrong that eventually forgiveness is given? Our justice system is built on that premise.

Is it right to live in perpetual penalties for an action. Does forgiveness mean that the receiver is weak and accepting the action means that the receiver accepts the action as acceptable? Even if some things cannot be undone, does that mean that the results are permanent? I think that this is not the case. I would like to think that forgiveness is a higher brain function that means that grudges will not last forever.

What purpose do grudges serve?

An example: Civil War

Some may know the premise of Marvel’s Civil War. The US wanted to have the super humans register with the government. Iron man was pro-registration and Captain America was anti-registration. This lead to a civil war among heroes, that left allies divided, especially the Avengers.

If we look at this scenario, each hero did actions that harmed the other. Each said things and did things that hurt and harmed each other. After enough casualties, the war had to end. Capt. turned himself in so there could be no more harm for the greater-society. Ultimately (as in comics), there was a need for heroes to fight and unite to save the world.

This proves that even fighting friends can put aside differences for a greater good. Is there a criterion for forgiveness? What are the prerequisites for forgiveness? I think that a person needs to repent. It would seem that a person would have to be willing to engage in the act of forgiveness as well. Iron man and Captain America had to work together for forgiveness. Both had to understand that neither was right, they were acting out according to their principles, with different outcomes. Ultimately, in order to move forward for the betterment of the world, they had to work together to build their working relationship.

Why do we need forgiveness?

Humans are complex. Humans interact with others. (Some try for solipsism, but that isn’t the Truth) Since the world is complex, people are fallible, no one can predict 10 moves ahead in their life, and two people cannot have identical perspectives, a certain action/decision will not always satisfy everyone.

The ability to forgive is a higher function of humans. If people do not forgive others, relationships will never be maintained. It is the inevitability of life that at one point, someone will disappoint, offend, or make a mistake. Is it right to not forgive others? I would say that if people want to foster meaningful, everlasting relationships, forgiveness is a necessary condition.

Ca Uber Alles or voting in Ca

Hello,

Does this sound good to you: "Calls for a permanent rollback of state spending to pre-1998 levels. Demands a part-time California State Legislature. Promotes radical state regulations reforms, drastically-reduced state government and numerous tax cuts. Pro-liberty platform. Opposes government bureaucracy and excessive taxation. "

If it does, maybe this is your candidate: http://www.daleogden.org/

I always find it hard to find a perfect candidate; it always seems to be a choice between bad, worse, and worser. I think this guy will suck the least.

I have always liked punk rock, Ca claims to be the golden state that is cutting edge, but it always votes for the same old candidates. It seems incumbents always win. Our current ranking of governed states (see below) shows this (psst. we are 49, we beat Kentucky!)

This article ranks the best to worst governed states (the list) from 1 to 50. Guess where Ca is? Things never change in politics. If people really want change, they need to create it by doing something different. (I guess the Dead Kennedys were being sarcastic when they said CA uber alles back in 1980)

I attached an oldie but goodie song that seemed to be a portend of the motivation of JB (Jerry Brown). To me, Meg Whitman is a liar who says one thing to group A and the opposite to group B. She is the typical politician who talks out of both ends of mouth.

Moreover, having a governor almost matters nothing because they only have the power to veto and pass the laws that are presented to them. The governor does not manufacture laws. The governor doesn't have the power to follow through with any campaign promises. All the promises are drivel. They can only say yes or no. The people with the real power are in the legislature and the ones who actual do work are the staffers for those legislators because they actually write the laws that are voted on and passed. The legislation are the things that directly impact us.

So, if you want to do something for Ca vote with your mind and don't listen to any commercials!!!!! (I think the TV ads are about as factual as a North Korean history book written by their supreme leader).

I really want to see some fat cat politicians lose their jobs like the 15% of actually hard working people who have lost theirs. I hate hearing about the private sector decreasing, while the pubic sector increases (when it it increases, it is like the blob just overtaking everything, both literally and figuratively. The government seems to only grow and take control of more and more things). With too many politicians, that when they sit their idle create new programs and ways to spend tax money.

I am angry with what passes as a representative democracy currently. Things need to change and they can change if the people hold the politicians responsible for their inaction and ineptitude. Most of use would lose our jobs or go out of business if we were as ineffective. I think CA's record and decline is evidence enough that all the current politicians are completely awful at their jobs. (If there are good ones, they don't speak loud enough to be heard by me).

I just want to see some positive change.

End the Fed part 3

Maybe the biggest question is “what caused the meltdown that is occurring now?” Ron Paul explains that the trail can be followed back to 2001 when interest rates were kept low to forestall a recession. Greenspan slashed rates from 6.5% in 2001 to 1% in 2003. Paul says, “Everyone in those days was consumed by the drive to not let the terrorists win. Well, the Fed assisted in undermining the foundation of the structure of the American economy and, in the long run, did more damage to economic prosperity than the attacks of 9/11.” He says that the risk of recession, by providing an artificial stimulus was the wrong move, meanwhile, it was the perfect opportunity to set things right and put the economy back on a firm setting, because they could implemented responsible monetary policy, not emotional policy.

Paul argues that most people in Washington simply don’t understand the complex structure of the economy and the American economic system. He tells a story about when he was approached by a member and asked if the US was still on the gold standard. These are the people elected! Some understand the system, but don’t want the truth out that the fiat system primarily benefits big government, big corporations, and big banks. But, if there are people who don’t know, then there are people who know. Paul again brings up the Austrian Economists (see part 1). He says that the economists knew, in 1914, that the structure would not last and predicted its downfall, eventually; that was the beginning of the end of the fiat money system.

I would like to think of this next part as a foundation for philosophy. In reading about superheros, one wonders why they do what they do? Think of Captain America. He has all that power, why does he chose to do what he does? During the Marvel Civil War, there was a law passed that made it a crime to fight and not be registered with the government. Captain fought for the rights of anonymity and againts superhero registration; he fought and against Iron Man. Eventually Capt. turned himself in to face trial for treason because he knew the war was causing harm to people and he decided to pay the consequences of his decision to fight against the law. It is a very interesting story and it shows the depth of comic writing. Anyways, I digress...

About the current mess, Paul writes that “in a structured social-welfare interventionist state, no one become solely responsible for his or her actions.” When did it turn out like this? At the end of Civil War, Captain America is...(don’t read on if you want to read it yourself and skip the next paragraph)... assassinated. I think the death of Captain America shows something about the nature and character of current America. Have we lost are way?

Rand’s objectivism states that the free-market system will keep things like our current mess from occurring. The market is a natural system that responds to the environment and corrects itself. When a person is on drugs, they do not respond appropriately to situations. The rationale fades, mood swings occur, basically they do not normal and the problem usually escalates and gets worse. The Fed gave the free-market a lot of “drugs” and basically its response was based on delusions. The problem is that we are the victims of the Fed’s choices. The economy of America was propped up by the decisions of one group who feels that they have a infinite revenue source (America Taxpayers).

Paul writes emphatically, “Moral hazard breeds dependency, neglect, and sacrifice of liberty, tolerance of false monetary doctrines, and promises of wealth without work.” I have learned early on that work is the one thing that can get a person somewhere. It is the most fundamental of American principles. Paul continues, “Paper money advocates make promises to the masses in order to appease them, ...and bring paradise to the world.”

If you wondered how central banking, artificial interest rates, and government creates this, Paul explains that, “artificially low interest rates are achieved by inflating the money supply, and they penalize the thrifty and cheat those who save. They promote consumption and borrowing over savings and investing. Manipulating interest rates is an immoral act. It’s economically destructive.” Who would have thought that economics had a moral component? When the outcomes affect people, I guess they do.

He explains that the market depends on information and when it manipulated, the information is not correct. He argues that price-fixing the basic job of a central banking system and is essentially a form of socialism. He responds to those that say that: the free-market is to blame for this current situation, is that the truth is that: the market wasn’t free, its been manipulated for the aggrandizement of the politicians. He states that free markets create sound money and have low rates as a consequence. The difference is that the low rates are real and aren’t an illusion created from a bubble.

The act of acting morally and righteously has the unfortunate reality of affecting some negatively. A truly responsible person does the right thing regardless of the consequences or the public perception. Hopefully the outcomes are good, but sometimes they are not. Captain America took the consequence of imprisonment for his conduct, Socrates accepted his consequence too. How come John Edwards and others from his moral-type cannot understand that actions have consequences and that ‘responsibility’ is not just a word that people use; but live by? I think a piece of America has died. The good thing is that the missing piece of our America can come back, but it takes the individual to be responsible. They also have to hold others accountable for their actions. Sometimes we just have to pay the price for fighting the good fight. I think we can all learn a little something about moral structure from superheros.

End the Fed part 4

I think Ron Paul’s position is elocuted clearly by his writing,he stated that “The Federal Reserve should be abolished because it is immoral, unconstitutional, impractical, and promotes bad economics, and undermines liberty. Its destructive nature makes it a tool for tyrannical government.” I have always been into punk rock and tried to follow the principles of Rock and Roll. Looking at the leaders of rock and roll now, you see right away they are spineless. If I learned anything from “Salt Lake City Punk”, it is that the true punk rocker and idealist is not a mindless, follow the trends liberal, it is an intellectual who is learned and well-read about ideas and strictly adheres to evidence. It seems to me that the Bonos, the Stings, the Oprahs, and the any other “do gooding” media hounds try to say that they are novel and follow a worth-while cause. But they really just follow play books on what is considered right and viewer-friendly. The true path makers are Ron Paul and others like him (most seem to follow the libertarian persuasion). These are people who don’t make decisions based on how many people are positively affected or how many people think it is a good idea. They follow ideas because of the idea, totally removed from the human element. I like this process of decision making; it is the most scientific (I think Galileo would concur). The idea works regardless if you like it or not.

Ron Paul Describes how the Byzantine empire fell because Nicephorous III Botaniates devalued their gold reserves during a war with the Turks. They lost and so did the most widely used coin of 1071. Paul claims that it is the responsibility of the government to enforce proper policies that allow the progress of a nation. A strong economy has been the integral factor into the definition of a strong nation. The current Fed policies have created this situation, in his opinion.

I understand his opinion about the cause of the financial meltdown, especially when Lenin has said that “...the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By continuing processes of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of its citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of law on the side of destruction, and it does it in a manner which one man in a million is able to diagnose.” (pg. 171)

Paul writes many reasons why the Fed is bad. He has philosophical reason (immortally), a constitutional reason (interpretation of “paper money”, a Hamilton vs. Jefferson dilemma), an economical reason (the instability of fiat money), and a libertarian reason (how money= freedom and personal liberty). He is only one voice of many. Just like any good question, as in philosophy, there are a myriad of answers. Philosophy would be boring and dead, like Latin, if the answer was so apparent.

Philosophy has brought us many things. Many times there are explanations that fit perspective. Aristotle explained the motion of things as: things moved to fulfill their purpose, i.e. smoke belongs in heaven, so it rises, or a stone, which is earth, falls to the earth when dropped. People liked this idea because it was simple and observable. People intuitively understand that things have a purpose and it is our duty to fulfill them. That was an accepted explanation of the motion of things and motivated people for a long time.

Galileo came along and changed that idea. He describes motion in a “cause and effect” way. He basically said that matter moves when it is affected by another piece of matter or physical body. He explained the observed motion of things as a causal relationship. His explanation motivated and proved successful.

Now, who really is right? Well, it is a matter of perspective; some people are happy with a purposeless world, others are not. I think it is a matter of ideas and how people use their ideas. Descartes had a criterion for the truth value of ideas. It is usually referred to the “clear and distinct criterion”. Basically he claims that ideas that are clear and distinct are true. He is famous for the “cogito” mantra; “I think therefore I am” illustrates that rationale.

Some things are clear and distinct, some aren’t. Is the Fed responsible for this mess or is the blame some place else? Paul claims one side and lays out an emphatic argument for his case. Is our current system bad? Defalcation does occur in our system, but that is because citizens have ceased holding politicians responsible for the decisions, good or bad.

What I think should come out of this is that people live the vision that Jefferson wanted for America; to live free and be able to make informed decisions. He wanted a responsible government that was limited. We sort of let government get out of control. In California, the will of the people is very limited; the government, unions, and state bureaucracies control every entity of government and business. It is the fault of the citizenry for letting the power slip away from them. We, as people need to ask the tough questions of politicians. What do you think about X, Y, and Z. Weather X, Y, and Z be economics, immigration, gay marriage, or cigarette taxes. We blame others for not being responsible, we need to be responsible and live the life that Captain America fought and died for.

End the Fed part 2

Throughout the book, Paul mentions Objectivism and the philosophy of Rand. I don't know what those are so I decided to check them out. What is objectivism? Well, from my understanding, objectivism is the idea that one can know reality through their sense perceptions. The reality that exists around us is independent of peoples’ minds and can be known and understood only through their senses, logic, rationale, and thought out deductions. (If you saw “Inception”, it is the opposite of that. Idealism is the philosophy that asserts mind-dependence)

To extend this to politics, objectivism is usually linked with laissez-faire; capitalism's confidant and business partner. Ayn Rand explained that the true moral society will have people who believe solely in objectivism. Ron Paul argues that having people utilize a true free market economy and use their own money to invest how they see fit, will maintain a healthy market that in turn benefits everyone. He asserts that a free market economy will favor strong businesses that favor the consumers because the informed consumer will only invest their money with a good company. The opposite will fail, but that is capitalism. He explains that this is the most fundamental of tenets for a strong economy and basically congress, the government, and mostly the Fed get it wrong. We see the failings and bad decisions all over.

The path to a stable economy is found through strong money. Strong money can't be sustained in a fiat system that allows mediocracy, and in some instances, prolonged and proven failure. Again, economics seem to mirror the process of natural selection, where those that are most fit progress, while those that are not, fail and go extinct. The only difference between the theories is temporal; Evolution takes millions of years and the market can respond within days.

Paul documents some dialogues he has had with the 2 chairmen of the Fed and highlights their views about the role of a central government in the stability of our economy. What is neat about Greenspan is that he changed his view while in the Fed; he took a pragmatic approach to the US economy when he began the chairman gig, but held an idealized view when he was just an economist. In his article “Gold and Economic Freedom” (1966), Greenspan said, “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value.” Then he said in 2004, “Once you decide that a commodity standard such as the gold standard is, for whatever reasons, not acceptable in a society and you go to a fiat currency, then the question is automatically, unless you have a government endeavoring to determine the supply of the currency, it is very difficult to create what effectively the gold standard did.”

To me, it seems that Greenspan has given up on what is best (solid money) for what “works”. (“Fiat money” is basically what a government replaces for a valuable object; like paper for gold (or in this case, what they say the paper is worth)) Here is what Greenspan says about the power of the Fed: “We have statutorily gone into a fiat money standard, and as a consequence of that it is inevitable authority, which is the producer of the money supply will have inordinate power...(we) are fully aware of the responsibility that the congress has given us, and I trust that we adhere to the principles of the Constitution of the US more so than one would ordinarily do.” (2/11/1004)

Uncle Ben said that “with great power comes great responsibility”. The workings of the most powerful nation’s economy is a large job that is determined by one agency. In a retelling of the classic Spiderman mythos, Spiderman Noir, which is told in the 1930s, Uncle Ben’s quote is adjusted to fit the time and purpose: “If those in power can’t be trusted, its the responsibility of the people to remove them.” I think this latter quote is what Ron Paul is trying to argue, among other things. It is the duty of the people to create the change that they want to see.

In the book, Paul argues more for Greenspan’s inability as chairman, citing times that he blamed the computer models for not being designed correctly which subsequently lead to an inability to forecast this turn of events. Greenspan explains that “the only reason there was an expansion of debt is that there was excessive demand for debt.” Who demands to be in debt? I think he is saying that everyone had their hand out and felt entitled because they didn’t want to take responsibility. This is typical politician-speak and basically shuffling the blame onto someone or something else. Honestly, I think he tried his best, but maybe managing the Nation’s money is just too important of a job for one person or one agency. Paul wants to argue that the free market is the solution. People have to be responsible for their economic decisions and the consequence of such actions. What a world we would have if people took responsibility for what they do!

Paul also had exchanges with Bernanke and basically says about him that he believes “...that government spending is a source of economic growth”, which Ron Paul retorts that basically means: “superstition of the old-line Keynesians that you can rob some people and give to other people and somehow magically create prosperity.” So Bernanke is inept too. Paul argues that superficially keeping interest rates low, as Bernanke has done, just shuffles the inevitable problem down the road, as in natural selection. Paul ends with a quote from the Wall Street Journal: “There never would have been a sub-prime mortgage crisis if the Fed had been alert...In general, it’s easier for a central bank to be accommodative, to be loose, to be promoting conditions that make everybody feel that things are going well.”

Keynesian economics argued that private sectors are inadequate for creating jobs and maintaining an economy. It instead proclaimed that the public sector is the entity that can create prosperity in a society and will create jobs. Keynes said it is the duty of the government to create jobs because that is the only way to maintain an economy. I wonder if Greece thinks that way still? (Keynes is the opposite philosophy of the Austrian economists.)

In LA there is a big scandal in the the city of Bell. Basically, there was a bunch of city officials that used a ballot measure to give themselves raises. For example, the city manager was earning $787,637! In Bell, yeah the shithole, Bell. (He is a fat slop that was arrested for DUI, the epitome of the term “fat cat”.) This incident shows what extreme, out of control governments can do its citizens. So the question is; when certain political groups blame economic disasters on run away capitalism, one can also claim that run away governments instill harm on citizens too.

Since it is now proven that big, central government causes problems and extreme capitalism (the monopolies of Rockefeller and the meat packing debacle are some instances) also cause problems, what is one to do? What side should you be on and who is to blame? I think there is no clear answer except that it is our duty as citizens to remain informed and hold our elected officials accountable. There has not been much compromise in government; everything is catered to one side or the other, no body wants to do what is right.

From the earliest history, Hamilton and Jefferson were polar opposites. Hamilton was a Federalist, who wanted big government and favored more centralized control. Meanwhile, Jefferson was an Anti-federalist, who wanted limited government and favored the state’s control of government. these are diametrically opposed ideas, but they compromised (not willingly or joyfully), but compromise nonetheless. It was successful, now they (the government) don’t compromise and they are unsuccessful.

Basically I think that Ron Paul is arguing that wealth that is generated from a printing press is not wealth at all and is unsustainable. It seems very obvious that this it true. Why don’t people see this or understand it?

Spiderman Noir and Our Duty

The comic book store where I buy my comics was having a sale on tradebooks. I decided that I would take part of the sale and choice to read a different take on Spiderman: Spiderman Noir.

I have always read Spiderman comic and have rarely read any of the spinoff stories. Right away I was welcomed by many familiar names and characters even though the timeline is very different than the traditional story that I am used to: Norman Osborn, Felicia Hardy, Vulture, Kravin, Chameleon, J.J. Jameson, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, and the reporter, Ben Urich.

Spiderman Noir take place in 1933 during the Great Depression. Even though the time frame is different, the archetypes and general tendencies of the characters that we have come to love, like Peter’s wry humor, are retained. For instance, when Urich takes young Parker to The Black Cat (a speakeasy) and Felicia ask Peter for ID, he quips, “Tell you what, I’ll show you my birth certificate and you show me you liquor license.”

I think what people love about Peter Parker is that he is quick witted and stands up for himself with his words and intelligence. He learned his behavior (apparently) from his Uncle Ben. This story also has Uncle Ben’s death being a pivotal moment in the life of Peter. In this story it is known that Ben was a thorn in the side of the doppelganger Goblin. In1932, Goblin is the street name of Norman Osborne, who runs the underworld of New York. Osborne’s conduct as a crime boss affects many innocent people and Ben stand up to him.

As in the traditional tale, Uncle Ben apotheosis is fundamental part of the creation of the motivation for Parker and Spiderman. During Peter normal thoughts and narrations, he goes over Uncle Ben’s words of wisdom as guidance. In this story Ben’s famous quip is transformed into: “If those in power can’t be trusted, its the responsibility of the people to remove them.” This variation serves the argument of the comic that people need to rise up and defend and protect their freedoms.

One thing that has always fascinated me about comic characters is what motivates them? Why do people do what they do?

In the traditional story arc of Felicia Hardy (Black Cat). She is a righteous wrong-doer. Her father was a cat burglar and she has inherited his skills. She does things that are considered bad, she harms or aligns herself with the “bad guys”, but ultimately the actions lead or are for the greater good. As in Civil War, she was a hero for hire, but was in it for the money, not the duty. Similarly in Noir, she owns and runs a speakeasy, named the Black Cat, which in 1933, is illegal. When Urich is murdered, she knows that she has to hand the documents, reports that Urich has been keeping on the Goblin’s misdeeds, to Parker because Urich knows that he will know how to use them. He knew that Parker’s moral imperative is stronger than his and that Parker’s sense of duty was beyond the reach of money and the illusion of grandeur that a life of villainy creates. So Hardy is the caricature of a person that has ambiguous morals. She does this that are illegal, but her ends are good? All the characters have their rationale and it is interesting to think why? I think people read comics to see how other react to situations and they make the reader wonder what they would do. It allows for the meta-analyses of ones actions and motivations that would never be questioned otherwise. I always think “what would Spiderman do?”

As in the traditional story, The Bugle characterizes Spiderman as a menace and as a vigilante. The Bugle, in 1933, only seems to characterized Spiderman as such because Goblin has put his half-brother Chameleon in charge (under the guise of J.J.J.). This is done because Goblin wants to win the public over by creating a common enemy, Spiderman. This shows how news is manipulated by the ones in charge. Those who have power use the tools that they have to keep their power. We would like to think that that the one thing we can trust is news, but we learn that their perspective is biased. I think this illustrates how biased newspapers operate. We would like to think that the news is unbiased, but that simply is not true. Goblin has J.J. in his pocket, just like current papers tell the tales from their financiers’ perspective.

From this we learn that Aunt May holds the opinions that the Bugle pontificates. When Spiderman rescues May from the clutches of the homicidal and cannibalistic Vulture, instead of gratitude she says that he is an animal like them (because he (seemingly)killed him to save her. She explains that we can’t live in a society were the good guys act like the bad guys. I think Gandhi famously said “an eye for an eye, makes the word blind.” May is always the voice of calm, collected reason. Her conduct motivates Peter and she always teaches Peter a lesson.

I think that comics do a neat thing in that they retell stories that are far off, but parallel the times. The setting of Noir being in during the Great Depression and showing the class divisions is saying something about our current times. The novel didn’t get into the cause of the depression. But, as I have read from Ron Paul, it is due to Congress expanding credit to US and others to grow the economy. Well, in a free market system, the market controls growth and takes care of itself. I think the proper term is “homeostasis”. Well, the actions by the Congress and subsequent over correction by FDR, was not conducive to helping the situation, so the market responded in kind.

The tale ends with the narrator (Spiderman) explain that things are back to normal with Aunt May on her soapbox railing against the monsters and bad guys. He recognizes that there will always be bad guys, but that means that there are always good guys too and “good guys always win.”

So to return to the quote from uncle Ben, “If those in power can’t be trusted, its the responsibility of the people to remove them.”, what can be learned from this tale?

During this economic down turn, we as people need to be responsible citizens, as Jefferson, Locke, Paine, and others envisioned us. The say the ills of having the few controlling and having so much power. Ron Paul has argued that the Fed has welded too much control for too long (1913). When only a few are making decisions, their decisions benefit the few only. We need to be responsible for ourselves and our democracy. Spiderman can show that people with power can be responsible, but he people have to be responsible too.

Aunt May fights in her way and Spiderman fights in his way. Even though they act differently, they are motivated the same way and fight for t

he same cause. I think Aunt May and Spiderman show that opposites can work for a common good. Maybe we need to remain more informed so the ones in power don’t take advantage of the many. Ultimately, the people give the ones in power their power. We need to do our work too. Our founding father knew that divergent ideas are the greatest asset that one can have. Our constitution was created to instill the framework for common good to be created from a collection of ideas. No one person has all the right answers for the direction of a society.

I think we need to revisit the laws that were established, follow those, and be careful how they are interpreted. Jefferson and the others were smarter than anyone around now, so we should listen to what they said. We can get our answers, but we have a duty to do

fulfil the parts of society what makes it a civilization. Ben did it, May does it, Spiderman does it, Felicia does it, and Urich did it too. Each person has a role to play, despite our different opinions and perspectives; we can unite in not letting the powerful take advantage of us. This is our Nation and we need to make sure that it is on the path that we want.