The ILL Docrtine

John Randolph, also known as Jay Smooth is a founder of New York's longest running hip-hop radio show, WBAI's Underground Railroad. He is also runs a video blog site called Jay Smooth’s Ill Doctrine, where he discusses issues and quirks about things from hip-hop to politics and political figures. Although seemingly brash and very irrational from his technique of sarcastically ranting and projecting his thoughts hilariously in his videos, Jay Smooth does point out very interesting outlooks and idea on certain subjects, especially in politics.

The Giant Word: Got-No-Sensitive

“Got-No-Sensitive - Adjective
     Pretending you agree with somebody even though you know they’re acting like they’ve got no damn sense.”

In this video, Jay Smooth explores the word sensitive. Jay Smooth states that the word, got-no-sensitive was invented in the 1950’s by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Senator Joseph McCarthy, at that time, noticed that United State’s people had very strong and irrational feelings about communism that were completely biased and mostly untrue. From the very unnecessary and misguided fear of the general public, Senator McCarthy decided to use them to his advantage. By completely agreeing with their fears, Senator McCarthy quickly became popular.

Jay Smooth argues that these kinds of people are not for your own good, for someone who agrees completely to whatever you say regardless of right or wrong will only make matters worse. A real friend is someone who will go against you when you are illogical.

In today’s world, this kind of technique is very popular in politics. Politicians are always acting on the ignorance of the people in order to get what they want. While President Bush was in office, he played with people’s fears to allow him to bring troops into the Middle East and start a war. This was possible because the public was fearful of Middle Eastern people, for they may be terrorists, regardless of the fact that the terrorist group themselves, is just a small number of people. The Got-No-Sensitive technique was also played by Politicians who would want to win office, where they would agree with whatever the majority of the public’s belief is, regardless of whatever he or she believes in. This was also especially true in the recent debate of the privilege of homosexuals to wed in last year’s presidential campaign. Neither Palin, nor McCain and not even Obama supported homosexuals’ privilege to get married. They know that it would be political suicide, for they would lose thousands of votes in many states. Now that Obama is president, there are signs that he may actually support gay marriage; however, he would not dare to say that he supports gay marriage while campaigning.

                How does this pose a problem?

I believe that what Jay Smooth is trying to say is that people are ignorant. Because of the ignorance, politicians and other people are finding that they are able to use this ignorance as a tool for them to succeeded, regardless if whether it is true or not. Why would we want someone running for office if they do not even care about what is right or wrong or even what they believe in, but only about using our feelings as a stepladder?

Why I'm Afraid of Christine O'Donnell

In this video blog, Jay Smooth rants about the qualifications that are needed for a job. Jay Smooth exclusively talks about a running candidate for senator named Christine O’Donnell. In her campaign advertisement, she states that she is the actual representation of us, or rather, you, and that she will go to office and do what you do. Jay Smooth is unsettled by her ridiculous campaign advertisement. Jay Smooth argues that her motto of her being you is a bad way to win votes. Jay Smooth does not want Jay Smooth to be in office, because he believes that he is not qualified for the job. 

                      Why is this important?

I believe that Jay Smooth wants people who are capable to do their job to be running for office, not someone who is just average. The economy and state of the US is bad and we need someone more than just qualified to better this country. And so, having a candidate that says she can be just like Jay Smooth, will not work for Jay Smooth.

The Matrix - Blue or Red?

In The Matrix, directed by Larry and Andy Wachowski, the main character Neo, a person with a semi-normal life is living in a false world created by computers.  Neo has been looking for the answer to the question of, “What is the matrix?” Eventually Neo meets a group of underground hackers who have known about the truth of Neo’s world. The leader of the group of hackers, Morpheus, has been searching for “The One” and he believes that it is Neo. Morpheus tells Neo that is a destined to do great things and Morpheus later presents Neo with two pills, two options, a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill represents the truth and change, something out of Neo’s world, where he would wake up from this dream and face reality; whatever that could be. While the blue pill represents falsehood, and Neo would continue living in the false fabrication of the world never knowing that he met Morpheus. Was Neo’s choice of the red pill correct?

If I was in Neo’s poistion, given Neo’s options, I would have chosen the blue pill.
 

Why not choose the red pill?
Yes, if I chose the red pill, I would stop living a worthless, useless lie of a life. However, would I be bargaining for more than I can handle? What is the point of facing the truth when I still have not lived this life to its fullest?  

      What is at the end of real life?
Taking the red pill is the same as committing suicide. If I were to die right now, I would face the real truth of life. Once the red pill is taken, it is impossible to return to the previous life, just as if one were to die. Once the red pill is taken, a whole new life will begin; one would be unable to see previous friends and acquaintances for they can become enemies at any time.

     So why would I take the blue pill instead?
Why would I throw away my current life, when I am still reasonably young and full of ambitions?  I would not trade my current peaceful life for one that is full of death, fear, and destruction. In the film, Cypher,  a fellow hacker in Morpheus’ group, wonders why he did not take the blue pill instead of the red pill when we was presented with the choice. He later meets up with an agent and makes a deal with him to give them Morpheus and in turn, return to the false world.

I would not blame Cypher for his decision. Once he took the red pill, he was thrown into a world where he was scared every day and forced to fight. The real world is not a nice place. In the film, the present world is black, lifeless, and fearsome. I believe the Neo is very courageous for taking the red pill, for I would not stay sane in a world that Cypher has to endure for very long.

And so, if I was in Neo’s place, I would have choosen the blue pill. I would rather live ignorant and not suffer than to know the truth and be forced to do something I would not want to do. There are things Neo has not experienced like getting married or having children. Even though the experiences may be fake, it is the same as being real if he does not know the truth. Ignorant is bliss.

Although people will say that taking the blue pill is cowardly, I do not believe that it is cowardly, but instead reasonable. Even if Neo was able to defeat the matrix and free all the people, what is there to return to? The world is destroyed to a point where life is nearly unbearable. Instead, they could all live in a virtual reality where it is so similar to what life is really like that it might as well be real.

Examine Life -- Peter Singer

      What is ethics ----------------------
------------and how do we justify our actions?

In a documentary called Examined Life by Astra Taylor, philosophers are exposed to the world to discuss their ideas and beliefs. Although many presented amazing arguments and opinions, one that stood out the most to me is one by Peter Singer, whom argues about implied ethics and how do we justify our actions.

  So just what is ethics?
Peter Singer believes that ethics is something that comes from oneself and it is what we decide to do in our lives. Implied ethics is something that challenges morals; morals are something that we have held onto for a very long time. Ethics is not something one do for themselves, but something that affects others as well. Because ethics can be different for everyone else, it can challenge morals.

“When you start to look at issues ethically, you have to do more than to think of your own interest; you have to ask yourself… how do I take in the account the interest of others?”

When one looks at ethics as something that affects others, the question of – how do we reduce suffering in the world? How does one decide what to do?

  What justifies our actions?
In the beginning of Singer’s interview, while walking around New York, he exclaimed that it is the center of one of the richest country in the world, and that raises an ethical problem.  In one of Singer’s books, he raised a scenario where a person was walking alongside a pond when he spots a child drowning. Instinctively, the person jumped into the lake to save the child not even bothering to take off his new shoes, consequently ruining them. Although the person did save the child, he threw out all the money it took to buy the shoes doing so. Instead of buying the shoes with that certain amount of money, the person could have donated that money to a charity organization like Unicef where he could have saved one or more children in a 3^rd world country from simple illnesses like a cold or diarrhea.

   So what justifies how we spend our money?
Ethics is what the choices we choose to do, and one is how we spend our money. It is not what we spend our money on; it is what we do not spend our money on. What one decides to do and what one omits to do.

 “When a person decides to spend $1,000 on a new suit, they believe that they are not harming anyone, but given the opportunities to help and given the way the world is, I think that we are failing to help someone. We have obligations to help, not to harm.”

Peter Singer believes that the meaning of life is to help others; make our lives meaningful.

In today’s world, people are taking too many things for granted and are too greedy.  Yes, some people do work for their own money to buy their own things, but why buy something for an unnecessary high price, when you can buy something that would work just as well at a lower price? Why buy a luxurious car for hundreds of thousands of dollars when you can buy a near equally nice car at just a few tens of thousands and save hundreds of lives by donating the money to an organization that gives aid to the poor and sick? People in today’s world are too materialistic and putting themselves at a greater priority than others. Peter Singer believes that is not the meaning of life; it is to help as much as one can.