Kill Your Day Job

Interesting Times

2012-03-11T15:31:00.000-07:00

There's an old Chinese proverb, sometimes called a curse, that says, "May you live in interesting times." For those who hold some belief in the possibility of living in a society or a world which is just and spacious enough (in every possible sense) for a human being to flourish (in every possible sense), the times we live in may seem cursed. Industrialized war machines seem to roam the earth nearly unimpeded, ideological extremism of every variety threatens the very basics of human dignity in almost every nation in the world. Any peoples relatively unaffected by those first two are ever more subject to the tyranny of a global economic system which shows as much disdain for their humanity as the war machines and extremist ideologies. The strange storm of the three combined seems to also be hurtling us toward a world in which questions of human dignity may not matter in the most ultimate sense, as in a disastrous future where the scales of the delicate ecological balance that has allowed for our species (and billions of others) to evolve may be tipped toward one which makes the continuation of human life (possibly mammalian life a whole) impossible.

Until relatively recently, despair may have been an absolutely appropriate reaction to this state of affairs. In "radical" circles, there is often talk of the possibility that pharmaceutical companies are chiefly responsible for sudden and dramatic upswing in the diagnoses of mental illness and the prescription of medications manufactured by the industry as the treatment of these ailments. It's no less possible that what is often referred to as illness, is in fact a response to an insane world that should at least be expected, if not recognized as a healthy response to it. For those whom the work-a-day world is not enough of a distraction for their minds, and who have a bend to their personality and psyche which nurtures an interest in the world beyond their direct, daily experiences and immediately apparent needs and desires, the convergence of facts make a compelling argument suggesting the road our species has long been walking ends in a cliff towards which we have begun to sprint. We may just be medicating the very natural reaction of human beings to find the lives their being corralled into by the societies they live in as inhumane and irresponsible, without the society also making available to tools to deal with these problems. The majority of us are expected and treated by the larger world as either consumers or as social problems in need of the most simple and easily instituted solution. Agency is something to be undermined or whose use is to be directed along avenues that serve exactly the same conditions creating this situation. It's not something to be fostered, nurtured and seen as a necessary and vital part of a healthy society. A healthy society has an acceptable G.D.P, where it would be more sensible to suggest that a healthy G.D.P creates a society it's citizens find both acceptable and healthy.

It's generally accepted in radical, activist, and even most reformer circles that the population at large is under a rather heavy burden of almost constant indoctrination by a society that is deeply unhealthy. Depending on the school of thought, the particular community, political or social bend of any given circle, the reasons for this and the results of it are debated. They do generally agree though that the combination of media, economics and social pressures the individual faces from the time they are able to begin to understand themselves in context with other human beings and a larger society, there is a level of indoctrination at work. That indoctrination generally involves supplanting or outright creating the consumer citizen in place of the civic citizen, and shaping a persons ability to view the world through the consumer lens and the narrative that favors the kind of society that will continue that tradition. It should also be noted that these aren't necessarily some completely fringe radical ideas either. There are entire schools of academic thought dedicated to studying, producing data and explaining the mechanisms and results of it. They aren't generally ideas that are expressed in the more far reaching media outlets or in political discussions or debates held at the national or global level. Academics by nature or training don't tend to express ideas in the kind of easily digestible, simply expressed terms that make them fit neatly into the narratives and interactions they're describing, making them essentially unusable. Good academic research tends to produce results that aren't as simply black and white as our current political and media institutions like them either.

Even if all of this is true, the astute observer realizes there are signs of hope which have been largely absent for at least a few decades. As protest movements spring up and spread in nations across the globe, their motivations, shapes and tactics may all be very different, but they have at least one thing in common, none of them are content to simply accept the current order of things. All of them are essentially asserting that the institutions of their societies (often institutions with deep ties to those of other nations undergoing similar mass discontent) are no longer able to meet, respond to or generally seem very interested in the needs and desires of their citizens. Those of us will an eye toward seeing our societies move toward more just and humane foundations should be cautiously hopeful about this. We should also be watching what's unfolding to understand who the players are among these movements and what exactly may come of it should they succeed. History suggests human beings do not always force useless institutions out in favor of institutions any more useful or humane.

Opportunity is at hand for anyone with the ability to recognize it and to take hold of it. This combination of factors creates a situation in which any of the allies of sanity and human dignity have the ability to begin to address the problems they have long considered, discussed and just plain griped about. With this opportunity though, comes a significant responsibility. Shaping the prospective future of a society, a nation or the global community as a whole isn't something that can be undertaken with recklessness. It's also not something that can be expected to happen quickly or without taking a long term view of exactly what steps are necessary, what methods are most appropriate and especially, what the desired result of it all actually is. It requires a long term strategy with a sober accounting of the conditions as they currently exist as it's foundation, as absent of ideological suppositions as is possible.

In considering this, it's important for any and all to understand that the institutions that currently exist, no matter how distrusted or discredited, have had a heavy hand in shaping the way the populace of any society understands itself or it's situation. Activists, revolutionaries, reformers and many others have long lamented that the populace of the United States, and in many cases, the wider world beyond it's borders are either ill equipped to be able to make a successful transition to a new foundation for this society or the global community. They have lamented that people are under the spell of a media, religions, and state apparatus' that act essentially as Soma, keeping the population laconic and pacified, unable to understand the real factors informing and shaping their existence. In more ways than not, this has been correct. But, again, the relatively sudden explosion of popular outrage and popular movements suggests there is some hope to be found and that these conditions can be changed.

In that context, it is incumbent on us who believe another world is actually possible, to begin to set down many of the assumptions we have long held or to at least begin to learn new ways in which to express them. Insulting the average individual who has been chained to these conditions for the majority of their lives and is beginning to show some sign of awakening isn't a useful method of communicating. It is more likely to drive them directly into the service and employ of those who have recognized the kind of seismic shift taking place and are attempting to take control of it in order to instill an even less humane and just set of conditions that favor an even smaller group of individuals, corporate entities and states, whether or not they realize that is exactly where they have gone to seek shelter from the perceived insult and it's purveyor. In other words, let's not let our own self righteousness and left over outrage (whether justified or not) be our worst enemy. Let's not defeat ourselves because we favor winning the short term debate or argument over winning the long term goals of a larger strategy. That would be an enormous waste of the opportunity we find in front of us.

There's a very recent example to consider. The controversy surrounding the viral behemoth that the Kony 2012 video has become. For a very long time there has been a call for citizens of the United States and other industrialized countries to begin to look beyond the West when considering the suffering and pain inflicted on our fellow human beings. Both nationalism and racism have been attributed to this phenomenon, which is many cases has some definite truth to it. With the release and epidemic like spread of this video, it does represent the opening of exactly that window. The Invisible Children organization has been under relatively heavy fire since the video became such a phenomenon, and rightly so it seems. Much of the criticism (and there's certainly a lot of it) seems to be based on a sound foundation. From not taking the needs and wants of the people it purports to desire to attain justice for to the speculation of it being little more than a scam, nothing about the organization, this particular campaign it's waging or the situation in Uganda (where it's calling for action) seems at all simple.

All of this has been relatively good. There is a small signal that people in Western industrialized nations are beginning to be able to take interest in the lives and well being of people beyond their borders, customs and race that is somewhat different from what we've seen in the past. There has also been a swift, vociferous and pointed rebuttal of what by all accounts is an oversimplified and generally ill advised campaign. Ugandans who suffered at the hands of Joseph Kony (whom the video is attempting to make infamous) are getting a chance to take the global stage to express what they believe is most needed in their country. The brutality and inhumanity of the current leader in Uganda is being brought to light as a result. For anyone willing to take even the most cursory look, a complex picture is emerging, in relatively quick order. Popular debate has begun as well. In all, there are some very good signs here.

There have also been some rather bad signs. Much of the criticism surrounding the entire controversy has been directed at the members of the general populace who have been spreading the video and expressing support for the campaign, and much of that has been unfair, and as a result, insulting. The dismissive nature of this variety of criticism is a hindrance to the cause of human dignity and respect more than it is a help.

One of the more interesting strains of this criticism has been that the general populace is once again gobbling up propaganda that serves the war machine. This is a myopic perspective. There's a lesson in the Kony 2012 video and campaign that should be heeded. Given that the general populace isn't well educated about the situation in Uganda or it's history, well presented propaganda can get the right conversation started. The word "propaganda" has come to have negative connotations due to the degree with which it is used by the kinds of institutions, governments and organizations there are so many popular uprisings against right now. But, in actuality, propaganda isn't much more than attempting to use some form of media to influence an individual or groups thinking related to a specific subject. Advertising is without doubt the most pervasive variety of propaganda. Advertising itself is used by corporations, political campaigns and every other variety of organization or community one can think of, including radical organizations, reform movements, and individuals with a desire to see the world changed for the better. Propaganda is a morally neutral tool, the way in which it is used may or may not be.

The average individual has neither the time nor the resources to spend on finding the information that will present them with the kind of nuanced, fully developed understanding of more than one or two specific issues or situations, at most. Being that they are entrapped in exactly the societal situation the very same activists, reformers and radicals making this criticism are attempting to address, it's a self righteous and ultimately destructive tactic to start attacking these average people. Instead, the Kony 2012 and Invisible Children controversy should be seen as a chance to take advantage of the opportunity that is created by the fact that the average, uninvolved person is taking some interest in people who are geographically and culturally on another continent. If the propaganda that their being presented with is of questionable value or moral standing, attacking the audience isn't going to do any of us any good. Present them with better propaganda instead.

This speaks to the question of a larger, long term strategy as well. It must be understood that the community of people attempting to push the society and the world forward toward a more humane foundation can not continue to both claim the populace is under the heavy handed weight of institutions that are holding them back from that progress and simultaneously attack that populace for being under the influence of those institutions. In many, many, many ways these institutions have formed the perspective through which the majority of society and the world see themselves and the world outside of themselves and their communities. Expecting that they are going to be able to shake that off because there have been a few months of more successful activism and more widespread protest movements is naive and absurd. It is self defeating and self congratulatory in the least attractive and appealing way. Approaching the populace in the same way that we approach the state or the various institutions involved with propping up the sagging status quo is a terrible, terrible mistake, and more than any other will guarantee that there will be change, and there will be a different kind of status quo, but it will be one in which we are even more likely to be the targets of repression of basically every variety. We can not both demand that governments, societies and institutions recognize the dignity of the human being and spend our time insulting the human beings we're demanding that recognition for. It is morally repugnant and it is intellectually and strategically empty. It is, in fact, the result of a lack of any real, pragmatic strategy.

There are other practical reasons not to take this approach to what is the majority of the people in any society. Jeremy Weiland has laid out a rough outline of the why's and how's for this as well. He has eloquently addressed the fact that those of us who have some desire to create a better society, can not do so through the iron willed approach we've spent our lives being addressed with by the agents of the status quo. It produces extremely problematic results that anyone with any real respect for human dignity is not going to want to be put in the position to deal with. His piece is aptly titled "Because Killing Them All Is Not An Option." Any long term strategy has to be made with the understanding that there is also going to have to be a strategy for once you've won, and continuing to develop the kind of antagonistic relationship that the majority of the radical, reform, and activist communities have had (at least to some degree) with the general public (or at least has been perceived by the public as having) is only going to facilitate an adversarial relationship should we actually be able to develop a long term strategy and win. This is not to say there isn't room for the kinds of non-cooperative and civilly disobedient actions that any successful movement needs, but that those actions must be exactly that, actions, and they should always contain the implicit message (if not absolutely explicit) that the action is directed at the state, it's institutions and it's foundations of power, not at the populace.

The attitude toward needling and antagonizing the populace out of it's lethargy is good and necessary when it shows no signs of having any interest in or idea how to bring itself about to some form of awakening. (On a personal note: It's an instinct I understand all too well and one I've been struggling to reign in as I've recognized there has already been a substantial change in the degree to which the public is willing to consider less than comfortable information in the last year). Considering the degree to which this is no longer true, and the numbers that can currently be counted as having a genuine desire to make some fundamental and foundational changes, that attitude should be almost totally discarded. It will not serve any long terms goals which will create a sane society that is willing to coexist with any more of a respect for human dignity than the one we currently find ourselves in. It will only create distrust, disdain and a lack of cooperation among those who do not already share any of our zeal for seeing that creation made real. What we need now is a creative and inclusive message that can point the way toward beginning to give the public the tools they need to no longer be reliant on the state and it's supporting institutions in order to be able to develop a more complex, nuanced understanding of issues on it's own. It will be a slow process, but it is also possible, and necessary in the long term.

For a good overview of beginning to develop and create a long term strategy with some ability to be both sustainable and successful, there are a number of good resources. Robert Helvey's "On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About The Essentials" provides an overview that is detailed enough to lay out the necessities, but vague enough to be able to be adapted to a number of different situations and desired outcomes. It's also written from the perspective of a man who spent a good deal of his life in the military, so it has a realistic and straightforward understanding of dealing with the problems that come from having to face a militarized response. Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship To Democracy" is also a good resource.

The Extreme And The Alternative

2012-03-01T13:33:00.005-08:00

The above are both photos of men with deep religious conviction. There is a stark contrast in what they represent to us. Never the less, they both show men whose religious conviction drove them to action. Both contain symbols that inspired others to action. Both represent men and principles which we're able to find a foundation for in The Bible. Today, we look back on the time this picture was taken, and we see in the first photo, a symbol of the most vile hatred, a thing which steals life. In the second we see a symbol of a deep, life affirming struggle for dignity.

It is unfortunate that in the teaching and study of history, it is almost inevitable that it seems as if the present is the product of destiny. Looking back on the events of the past, we see that they have lead us here, to today and it's a forgivable mistake to think that it had to have happened exactly as it did, especially when it's a history we are somewhat proud of. It only takes looking a bit further back in our history to see how wrong that idea is though. We don't like to talk about it, and there are no monuments on the national mall to represent their struggle, but then again, there was no television in the days Native Americans were being exterminated here, under sets of reasoning not very different from those used by the men in the first photo. We don't like to talk about that because it was treated as if it were destiny at the time, which in hindsight seems extremely arrogant, especially when it means exterminating upward of six million people. Had there been pictures of Native Americans, being slaughtered or entire villages purposely infected with some terrible disease, beaming into every home in the nation at the time, their fate may have been somewhat different.

In the time the above photos were taken, what they represented was a choice. Which of these ideals was one going to follow? Both were addressing a social issue in religious terms. Both were addressing an issue related to a group of people who were assigned "minority status" by the society they lived in. Both claimed that they were fighting for the dignity of their people and invoked the name of God and various Biblical passages as proof of their moral and spiritual righteousness.

Today, we face the same choice, yet again. Which of these philosophies do we choose to support? Do we choose to support a philosophy which has benefited from, and continued because we allow it to tell us what the ultimate meaning of humanity is, creating a chasm between ourselves and those we share society with? Will we instead decide to follow a philosophy which asks that we come together, affirm the dignity of our fellow human beings and the struggle from which it has emerged? It is a choice and it is each of ours to make.

Today, we face issues that may be different in their complexity and in their circumstance (though not all of them are really even that different circumstantially), but that base question rests between these two ideals. On the one hand, we have men and women who have spent near their entire lives and in aggregate billions of dollars in the attempt to convince us that those with whom we live are not fit to live amongst us or that their rights are by their existence, an infringement on our rights. At the time the photos at the top were taken, the new medium of television was an integral part of bringing the results of that philosophy into people's living rooms. Today, it is quite possible for an individual who has already decided they believe many of their fellow human beings inferior (for any number of reasons) to go through an entire day having their choice affirmed and that philosophy served up in ever more zealous ways. They can go through the entire day, hearing it on the radio, come home and find it waiting on the television. The disastrous results of their decision do not have to invade their personal reality.

For everyone else, whether or not they have made a choice, we are being subjected to those results. Policy after policy is being based simply on these very same ideals. They are (as slavery was) often dressed up in economic and religious arguments, but at the end of the day, even those economic policies are at base, these same philosophies. We have seen this same question put to us continuously in the last twenty years about the rights of the LGBT community. Will we treat them as fellow human beings, as deserving of dignity as respect as we are or will we choose instead to treat them as lesser beings, who deserve none of our respect for dignity due to our innate superiority? This is the same question, again and again, and again.

There has most recently been a hard fought battle related to the sanctity of the individuals right to decide their own medical needs and desires. It has been packaged by as an issue of religious freedom. To those claiming this an issue of religious freedom I would ask if they are as surely outraged by the New York Police Department's surveillance and cataloging of mosque's, Muslim college students and business's across the entire Northeast? The right issue of religious freedom is among those that should never be specially enforced for any group, minority or majority. Yet, among so many currently using every second in front of a microphone or a camera to obsess about the principle of religious freedom, this wholesale state assault on the privacy of individuals founded only on their religious affiliation has been strangely absent from the critique. We have experienced no attack on religious freedom in the last two decades as focused and ferocious as that which has been leveraged against the Muslim community, and many of those now making an argument that their religious freedom trumps the freedom of the individual to make medical decisions with the council of their doctors. Instead of making the claim that religious freedom is a principle not based on the adherents choice in religion or that medical decisions are based upon the choice of the individual, they are asserting, through word and the action of legislation, that it is their freedom and their right to choose for other individuals, based on their choice of religion. They are and were among those move vocally opposing a Muslim community center being in New York at all when they realized it was a politically profitable position to take. They have also been among those who have most viciously slandered Islam as a whole, calling it a religion of violence, hatred and bent on world domination.

There can be absolutely no argument made that among the billion Muslim's in the world, there are those who favor violence as the method of attempting to solve their grievances, whether those grievances are specifically religious or political. These men, and some women, have succeeded in provoking an already hostile and arrogant Western world into portraying them as savages. The problem being, we in the U.S. certainly have no particularly strong moral ground to stand on when it comes to the denunciation of savagery. Savagery of this same variety was visited directly on the original citizens, whose birthright the land this nation was founded on, the Native Americans. And the reality is, this circle of violence, of men bowing to the least human and humane methods through which to solve problems or temper their differences has served only in seeing to it that hundreds of thousands are dead, millions are without homes or the basic necessities for the foundation for a life which is full in it's dignity, in both that given and received. These hateful, and ultimately self absorbed individuals have done little but cause their countrymen and their fellow human beings more suffering and death. Extremism in the Middle East, extremism in the West, and extremism of the "tolerance" of this extremity are all to blame. These have been wars created by extremists, none of whom believe in either religious freedom or believe in the basic dignity of the human being who doesn't passively submit to their demands for religious, social, political, economic, racial and gender domination. They are people who do not understand that the increasing interconnected nature of the world has made their world view obsolete. Average Afghan's have no more interest in holding dominion over average Americans than is true of the reverse.

We see now that this same psycho drama is playing out even in relation to questions of Iran's nuclear program, and what should or can be done to prevent it. There can't be an honest assessment of the entirety of the situation which comes to the conclusion that Iran having regular access to nuclear materials is something that is in any way going to improve any situation. It is a regime under the variety of extremism and zealotry that is yearning for greater power here in the United States. It is a regime which recognizes only it's freedom to impose it's will on the citizenry, and through it's proxy's, other nations including Israel and Pakistan. No honest assessment of the situation can suggest that it is beyond the realm of possibilities that material provided by an Iranian nuclear program will not, at the least, end up in a dirty bomb releasing a cloud of radioactive materials in the center of Tel Aviv. No sane person who believes in the dignity, health and rights of human beings can believe that is an acceptable situation.

Israel, for it's part, has squandered much of the international communities good will as it has crept toward an extremist treatment of the Palestinians and Palestine as a whole. Israel's current course, constantly threatening to take preemptive military measures against Iran while refusing to make any concessions to Palestinian requests, is adding nothing good. The moral quagmire surrounding Israel, it's establishment and it's right to exist has become an intellectual exercise on the part of almost all parties other than the Israeli's who've lived their entire lives in a society consistently terrorized by bombings and murder, and the Palestinians who have been living with Israeli occupation since at least 1948. Because of the nature of the way it was established, it leaves no simple answer. Due to the inflexibility and extremism the European Jews faced when they were forced to flee to what was not yet the state of Israel, there are no morally sound grounds for any of the arguments that suggest Israel, as a state, should or should not exist. It is among the more catastrophically stupid, insane and immoral situations in the history of the modern world. No one is right, and everyone's position is relatively understandable. For it's part, the vocally anti-Israel segment of the American political spectrum is disingenuous, at best and deluded at worst. Should Americans have spent forty years living with the constant bombardment of their civil, social and private lives with bombs and bullets, we would be a nation that went collectively insane a very long time ago. We have suffered very few terrorist attacks in comparison, though 9/11 was an attack on the most horrible scale, we succeeded in losing any sense of our moral composition in the years that followed. Should Israel now take another step down that same road by preemptively striking another sovereign nation, they will succeed in doing something no one else could possibly do right now. Striking Iran preemptively, will only serve to take an Arab and Muslim world that is fracturing, in a very good way, and provide for it's most extreme voices to once again glue together a nightmare of horrific enough weight that it will reverse the progress made there. Extremism can not exist in a society without fear and terror a a sufficiently frightening "other."

That fracture happening now, between the people of the Middle East, and the extremist dictators and regimes which have oppressed them so long, presents diplomatic opportunities for both Israel and the West that haven't been present for decades. There is a fact whose importance can't be under estimated though. All of the people struggling against these repressive, violent regimes are being assaulted, shot, shelled and murdered with arms manufactured in the West, specifically, here in the United States. Regardless of the final result, should Egyptians win their freedom from all oppression, find their way to establishing some form of society and government which they believe to represent them, they are not going to forget that the shell casings from which the bullets that killed their family, friends and neighbors have been killed, were all stamped with "Made in the U.S.A." The pictures of young people holding up tear gas canisters with that phrase painted on them are not soon going to leave the popular consciousness. The same can be said for Bahrain, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Lebannon and so on. There are people at the very center of mainstream American politics, today, saying that the United States should have backed the Mubarak regime, because it was historically friendly to us. They are saying essentially, that the fight Egyptians are waging for their own freedom is of less importance than the ultimate level of influence and superiority we "could have had" in the Middle East. Because it is somehow better to have influence through a violent, despotic regime than to have gained that influence through having demonstrated some degree of moral sense, and stopped supporting a vile dictator. They favor this above having a relationship between the people of Egypt and the people of the United States which says, "We stand for and support each others humanity, each others basic right to dignity and respect." It is better, they believe, to have been the ally of a dictator who was responsible for mass oppression, than to finally, after too many years, take the side of people who are fighting for their own dignity. It is more than optimistic or naive to suggest these same people, supporting these brutal regimes, would have any different an attitude toward citizens of the United States who might attempt to assert their right to dignity and to govern their own lives. It is patently stupid and the result of willful ignorance at it's worst. In this particular case, the Egyptian citizens are the one's who are serving own their need for dignity and respect. Who among us at home may fall into that category now or at any point in the future and why would we be stupid to expect those who are willing to support brutal dictatorship to ever respect and respond to our calls for the same dignity and respect?

Should Israel go through with it's threat to preemptively strike Iran in order to remove any possible nuclear capability they have, it will be yet another example of Western (overwhelmingly interpreted as the United States) manufactured weapons reigning down on Muslims, from what is seen as an oppressive regime. Whether or not one agrees with the idea that Israel is an oppressive regime doesn't actually matter, because to the majority of the Middle East's Muslim population, that is what Israel represents. Israel preemptively striking a sovereign nation could also serve to frighten the citizens of other Middle Eastern nations enough to create the kind of atmosphere where they end up seeking the kind of strength that is projected by the more extreme factions of Islam in the region. It's should also not be forgotten that right now, one of Iran's most steadfast allies, Syria, is in the midst of what has basically degenerated into a civil war. Should Iran be preemptively attacked, there's no real way of understanding if that will propel them to intervene in that conflict in whatever way they can to prop up their primary ally. It is after all, Syria, who has been primarily responsible for insuring that Hamas has been armed with the capabilities to continue to antagonize Israel. The more time passes, the more it seems true that Israel has done itself no favors through retaliation against Lebanon. Though it was completely understandable at the time, in the larger picture, it is again a "Western power" reigning destruction down on Arabs and Muslims. It is also worth mentioning that for all of those criticizing Israel with a rather profound zeal, calling for it's dissolution, none of them seem to be also offering up the idea that the United States dissolve itself and return the land on which it rests to those whom it waged genocide against.

By all accounts, the Iranian population are a sophisticated people, and it's a country which is overwhelmingly young in its demographic. Israel, and the United States will be making a grave mistake in punishing this population for it's leaders myopic world view. It's worth it to remember that prior to Egypt and the Arab Spring, Iranians had taken to the streets in protest. They may have been poorly planned, and without a larger, long term strategy, but that is even more reason to believe waiting on the Iranian people to be ready to make their own move toward a real, strengthened opposition is the best strategy. Those who were among the organizers of those protests will have learned exactly how necessary a long term strategy is for success. And with the increasingly stringent sanctions taking their toll, unemployment will continue to rise (already a problem for Iranian youth) and pressure within Iran itself will continue to mount. That is to say, so long as the unifying experience of foreign invasion and attack remains absent from the equation. Few things are as good at unifying any population as the experience of foreign attackers blowing that populations infrastructure to hell.

Let's also not forget that one of the most often referenced extremes in the Muslim world is that toward it's women. The Bush administration attempted to trot out it's humanitarian ideals in giving this reason for going to war in Afghanistan, and in the following decade, even as it's become inevitably clear to the most ardent of interventionist "hawks" that the war in Afghanistan was begun, and largely executed with absolutely no discernible goals and is therefore an absolute mess, the most extreme of those interventionists have continued to pine for the safety of the female population of Afghanistan should the United States completely withdraw from the nation. There should be no doubt or miscommunication, the Taliban's treatment of women was a horrific affront to anyone who believes in the right of the human being to dignity. It was a disgusting exemplification of what happens when one human being is allowed to act on the belief in their right of ownership over another human being. the Taliban believe the men of a society have ownership over the women. All of this, again, given through religious foundations.

The problem with this line of reasoning resides directly in our own homes as well. The most chauvinistic of extremes in Muslim cultures views women as property that men can do with as they see fit. If the last few months are many indications that there are more than a few extremists here who believe no differently in principle, though cultural differences make them unable to take the same extremity of action. In Virginia's General Assembly, a bill that proposed the state's requirement of inserting an object into a woman's vagina without regard to her consent, was disposed of only because there was a swift and well organized opposition to a degree that the extremists in that legislative body aren't quite used to encountering. Regardless of the reasoning, should it be because she is attempting to get an abortion, an ice cream cone, a Jeep Cherokee or trying to understand what her reproductive choices are going to be in the future, the state requiring that a woman have a medically unnecessary object inserted into her vagina is based on the underlying assumption that she belongs either to the state (in this case, overwhelmingly male in it's composition) or the men who are acting in what they believe are the state's interests. Those interests are founded on religious arguments. One can not assume it is their right to require such a thing without first assuming the individual is theirs in propriety or that at least, the privilege of the decisions of medical necessity belong to them, which at the end of the day, is essentially the same thing as treating a human being as if they are an object that can be owned. If one can not have rely on the safety of their person, their body, from unnecessary invasion from the state, exactly what kind of unnecessary invasion from the state can they feel safe from? It is essentially saying that the woman in question does not have the right to the dignity of her own agency, and that without agency must have decisions relating to her well being made by those who do have agency. All of this, is of course, undertaken with "religious freedom" as it's battle cry. The freedom of any individual, male or female, to not have their person invaded without medical necessity apparently falls behind that of these individuals to propel their religious beliefs on others or in this case, actually inside others. To say this is not extreme, physical invasion, mandated by the state, under religious terms is to be either dishonest or without a strong enough sense of one's own agency to understand the degree of insult this is.

That degree of extremism, the degree to which one believes they are mandated by religion to have the right to an invade an others bodily integrity, is a few degrees shy from the basis upon which we see mutilation and murder of women happening in the other religions these very same people have decried as a danger. Bodily invasion in order to induce shame or guilt isn't very many degrees removed from bodily disfigurement, and the many things that follow it. The agency of the individual over which this will is exercised must be disregarded, dismissed or must never have been taken into account as actually existing in equal to that of the individual attempting to exercise their will. She, over whom this will must be exercised, must of necessity, be a lesser being or (more frighteningly) the individual who is attempting to have their will done on the other, must be a sadist.

That kind of sadism is not something absent from the history of the United States either. We need look no further back than the Tuskegee Airmen to understand how pernicious this mentality can be. Americans who had volunteered to serve their country were experimented on without their consent, like lab rats. All of this, essentially because an extremist perspective had been too long tolerated, and the basis of that perspective was the superiority of one group to another, often given foundation in religious terms. There is also the lesser known, and equally shocking program of medical experiments committed on citizens of Guatemala without their knowledge or consent. We can continue to look back at medical history for any number of interesting results, especially in treatment of the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill to see that when a human being begins with being understood to lack agency, that it takes nothing at all for an extreme perspective to therefore impose their own will on them, and all too often that ends with the absolute disregard for dignity and humanity.

All of these examples of this variety of extremism, that has no respect for human dignity, much less for the dignity of the autonomy of the individual, may have threads of religious extremism, but this shouldn't be mistaken to be the fault of religion. To say that religion is the force and the reason for this variety of religious zeal and extremism is to leave individual without responsibility and to take little account of the individuals autonomy. It is to suggest, at the least, that the individuals who have chosen to embrace and to propagate extremism of this variety have never been offered any variety of alternative. That, is patently, demonstratively false. The choice has been presented to them in a thousand different ways. It has been presented in various forms of secular humanism, an alternative most people of faith find hard to accept, understandably, as well as many different traditions of faith offering a very different path, no less religious, no less pious, but full of the respect for the dignity of humanity and the autonomy of the individual.

Those who have been playing the ass, braying about religious freedom while showing themselves to have none of the respect for human dignity that makes all of this freedom and all other freedoms possible (expressed in the Constitution as "We behold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happines" even as they were excluding large populations from those Rights, it represents a deeply profound ideal in contemporary context), have made a conscious choice at some point in their lives to follow or continue to follow this extremism. It can not be asserted that an adult, understood to be psychologically sound, here in the United States, could not at some point in their lives, encountered a tradition of deep religious faith that has more respect for human dignity than these varieties of extremism. No one can say that there isn't a degree of cultural pressure in the varieties of extremism that proselytize for it, that the individual may not face exclusion from that community should they cease to espouse those beliefs, but to accept this as an excuse is to again suggest that the individual in the situation does not have or exercise autonomy. It is, a matter of responsibility, to put it in the terms these extreme groups favor. These are people who have abandoned any responsibility to act in an accountable fashion in the context of the larger community in which they exist. They are making a choice to be responsible only to an extremist doctrine and an extremist community that provides both confirmation and affirmation of it.

We have today, in our public sphere, the person of Rick Santorum. He has become a near perfect amalgamation of a number of varieties of American extremism. Santorum is only an example though, as without the mass of hate filled hearts praying for his success, he would be the equivalent of a street corner preacher who is passed without thought by the overwhelming majority of pedestrians. The interview here contains an interesting and notable set of ideas. Santorum provides a commentary on a relatively famous speech by John F. Kennedy in which he proclaimed that the wall between church and state was absolute. Santorum has made the claim that this makes him want to vomit. What Santorum, as a Catholic, and someone who most assuredly knows the historical context of J.F.K's speech, is not only being disingenuous, he's being completely dishonest and is also demonstrating one of the most most horrifically terrifying qualities of this kind of extremism. The historical context for J.F.K's comments are such that he was the first Catholic to have a very good shot at winning the presidency. At the time, he was facing the religious extremists of his own day, who had joined together in a strange cabal of hatred. Not only were there those who were using religion as an excuse to attempt to stop the Civil Rights movement, but there were also those that were horrified at the possibility of a Catholic in the White House. The combination of the two strains of unreasoned hatred were producing a narrative suggesting, essentially, that the Pope would be running the country, and because this was the period during which the country was experiencing a political realignment on race (which itself divided the nations Catholic community), that would also mean black people would be able to do terrible, horrible things... like vote, eat in restaurants white people were also eating in, go to public schools where there were also white children, and so on and so forth.

Santorum is Catholic. One can not grow up with a devout Catholic background in this country without being aware of the exact kind of religious prejudice J.F.K faced while running for office (having come from a family with a few devout Catholics, I assure you, they have not forgotten). J.F.K's proclamation of the absolute wall between church and state was his defense against religious extremists attempting to keep him out of office based (so far as the religious aspect of their argument was concerned) on his being Catholic. Now, Santorum, running as a kind of Catholic Crusader for the 21st century is deriding the man whose decision to do so helped him win the presidency and as a result, has made it easier for Santorum to find his way onto the ballot in the national primary for one of the nation's two major political primaries. Santorum is demonstrating the ability of extremists like this to attempt to outcast and destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them at the very moment they're making any particular argument. If there hadn't been a J.F.K to be the first Catholic president, Santorum would be facing a degree of scrutiny about his religious beliefs that he may not have survived thus far, and it would specifically be coming from exactly the same extremist community he is now courting with these comments. Santorum, it seems, is willing to make a historically inaccurate and genuinely hateful statement about a man to whom he owes a debt of gratitude, in defense of his extremism. Again, in this context, why should any of us question the willingness of extremists like this to throw us to the wolves and disregard any call for a recognition of our dignity as human beings?

Santorum is also espousing the same variety of extreme view related to women, their rights to make their own decisions about their health, and economic views which aren't far behind in the degree of extremism they exhibit. He is also among those most loudly trumpeting the idea that the United States should attack Iran, probably very soon. He is espousing that royal flush of American mainstream extremism, that no community other than his own has the right to the dignity and respect of the fullness of their humanity. Even those who may hold similar views, must at some point ask themselves at which point they may be on the other side of this kind of extremist thinking and willingness to degrade and dehumanize? Should one believe they are going to forever be able to be in complete, exact agreement with this kind of extremism, it's history should be considered, and the number of times it has changed allegiance should be readily apparent. Their hatred may have one target today, but it may be amongst formerly allied communities tomorrow.

Santorum would essentially be a cartoon character if not for the fact that he is one of the front runners for the nomination of one of our major political parties. This is not to single out the Republicans, not to single out conservatives or to single out anyone who often finds themselves on what is popularly considered the political right in the United States. The average person who associates themselves with the American right is fundamentally interested in the question of the governments ability to inject itself into the individual's ability to make decisions for themselves. This is a philosophically and morally decent question to ask, and many of them make both philosophically and morally sensible arguments related to that question. It is a good thing to have around, there should never be any doubt about that. They may be fairly religious as well, and may hold some of those views which the faith organization of their choice espouses. At the same time, they are no more interested in the government inserting itself in their lives on the basis of religion than they are having it insert itself for any other reason. Extremists like Santorum, Pat Robertson, Ken Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell (Pat Robertson's protegé), Glenn Beck and so forth, have stolen the megaphone from American conservatism and are taking it down a dangerous path of extremist theocracy. This is not to demonize good people who have different opinions. Differing opinions should be valued and should be welcomed. Where that difference should be abruptly and forcefully confronted is when it demands it can and should be asserted on to others.

For those of us who actually believe in religious freedom as a principle, as opposed to a banner to hide our prejudices and hatred behind, we have made a choice as well. We have chosen to remain silent for what now looks to have been far too long. If you wonder why it is the more militant among wide array of people who can be considered part of the atheist community have begun to undertake a campaign of attacking religion as a whole, this is why. Tolerance is a virtue. Taken to an extreme it becomes apathy. This can no longer be the default setting for anyone who is interested in not having their lives, their governance and their society dominated by the varieties of extremism which have been outlined here. It is no longer tolerance. It is no longer in the best interests of a civil society to allow this kind of extremism to go unchallenged. For anyone who thinks this is an alarmist perspective, that somehow, someone, somewhere will come along and speak enough sense to put this insanity to rest, stop waiting. It will only be those people who believe in an actual religious freedom, for all, who will be able to expose this extremism

This extremism is never going to be successfully battled and sent back to the dungeons of public acceptance, where it belongs, by making claims that religion has no place in contemporary society. Human beings are no more likely, in the foreseeable future, to abandon belief in religion than they are to abandon the idea of living in cities. Both have been a part of civilization since it began, neither is going anywhere soon, and this being a given, it is both ridiculous and wasteful to spend time making these claims and assumptions. It should also be noted that determining whether or not religion should be allowed, practiced or a part of society is, in principle, no different than the different varieties of expulsion these religious extremists call for. There is, contrary to what many of the more extreme religious instigators like to claim, a fundamental difference between the atheist asserting religion must be done away with and the religious zealot demanding all people bow to or be subjected to the dictates of their faith. One is asserting people should be free of the intellectual, emotional and psychological bonds of religion, and therefore, be allowed to look objectively at the choices they have and make. The other is asserting theirs is the only idea or ideal that should be acceptable. Though the sentiment may be coming from a much more respectful and respectable perspective when the atheist makes this claim, they are still denying one variety of choice in their equation, that of religious belief. In a society based on human respect, this shouldn't be the case. The belief in a theology or a deity isn't the base problem, it is the dressing draped over the rotting corpse of a society that has too long tolerated dehumanization.

In the end, the call to end religion from one part of what is a large and diverse atheist community, is essentially a reaction to that dehumanization, and it is that which should be addressed, fully, face to face. Tolerance does not have to mean that a person or that a society accepts the manipulation of their good will in having been tolerant, which is what has become the norm among these extremists. Like their calls to religious freedom, their chief antagonism toward a tolerant society has been to cry discrimination when confronted. Even as those who are religious are the majority, and the majority of the society exists in a way that favors their religious preferences, when confronted about this extremism, they have turned to decrying all of those who have stood firmly to say that tolerance can not mean tolerating discrimination, hate filled rhetoric (that has no basis in fact), and invective meant to dehumanize those of our brothers and sisters toward whom it is directed. That is not tolerance, it is apathy and it is enabling the destruction of that tolerance and the good that it does any society. It also serves to stall the further advance of making a society based on respect and dignity. It devolves into the false dichotomy that we now face, the extremists and the rest of us who would like to be able to get about our lives, in keeping with that respect and tolerance. It serves to keep a society, that like ours, is ever changing and evolving, from being able to take the correct steps to address those changes and the evolution that is inevitable. Instead, the changes come, the evolution happens, and because they are ignored in favor of attempting to keep these same extremists from denying a recognition of that basic respect and dignity, we are all left playing a collective game of catch up, trying to undo problems which could have been prevented with a sober and sane accounting of the facts. The ultimate result is that we are not having the debates and discussions which are actually necessary in order to be sure we are prepared for the inevitable future.

In a world that is more and more connected every single day, in which the actions of people on the other side of the world have more effect on our lives today than they ever have in the past, we must be laying the groundwork and building the infrastructure which will support the weight of that reality. Instead of having the discussion about why it is we are falling so far behind in seeing to it that every community in the nation has access to broadband internet, we are arguing women's rights, the rights of the LGBT community, and essentially ignoring the problem of mass incarceration. This can not continue if we, as a society, expect to be able to be part of the kind of world community that is developing. And in that world community, it is going to take a degree of tolerance and humility to be a vital, effective and positive actor. With the events surrounding Iran right now, we are seeing what the extremes of the ideologies of the twentieth century have produced. If we have any hope of avoiding the same mistakes, we must prepare for the world that is hurling toward us at an ever accelerated rate. We can not afford to continue to be mired down in the arguments of the nineteenth century in a twenty-first century world or we will be cast out from all of the benefits that it has in store.

We, who believe that it is possible to have a society which is based on and takes a real account of human dignity and respect, must no longer stand in our own separate communities. We must no longer stand alone. What has long been on the side of the extremists is that they have become glued together, speaking of one mind, speaking from the same invective filled script, spreading the terror of everyone who is not within ear shot as they go. It's now time that we begin to speak together. It's time now that we begin to stand together. It's time now that we say, "We have tolerated extremism long enough. We have wrestled with our responsibilities to tolerance, to acceptance and to the right of those who would to spread their hatred. It's time now to address those problems that have been neglected as a result, and to prepare for those the future will bring."

This responsibility comes with an important understanding. Those who have come to espouse and push this kind of extremism are our kin, fellow citizens as much as those who have spent their lives working toward creating a world which is based on human respect and dignity. Extremism can no more be expelled from a society or the world than religion, atheism or culture. It would not be an effective or realistic goal. What is a realistic and effective goal is that the rest of us, who don't believe in these hateful ideas, stand together as one people, and act with the dignity and respect we are fighting for. Extremism is defeated with further extremism. Nor is it defeated with anger and invective. It is defeated with the strength of a confident, proactive community which can communicate the values it most deeply believes in. Extremism is defeated by facing people who stand with straight backs, loving hearts, sharp minds and the clear statements of the truths they hold to be self evident. It is time that extremism is exposed for what it is, the terrified cries of people who have lost understanding and bearing in the world that exists. Defeating it means providing that understanding and the symbols that give real meaning.

This is going to mean we must stop waiting for the state, it's chosen methods and the necessary changes that extremism makes impossible. This is to say, that if you are among those who have been the target of this extremism, you must begin to step away from the divisions which have historically existed in American society. We must no longer have women's rights issues. Women's rights issues must be all of our issues. We must no longer have immigrant issues. Immigrant issues must be all of our issues. Issues of the black community must be all of our issues. Issues of the LGBT community must be all of our issues. The issues of the middle class and the poor must be all of our issues. We must begin to see ourselves less as separate communities attempting to reach for the respect and dignity our communities deserve than we must begin to see that this struggle to achieve that recognition is never going to move forward so long as the extremist ideologues who have so long targeted our communities can turn to another community to attack in order to distract attention the second one of our communities begins to make advances. All of these issues are fundamentally related in their struggle for dignity and basic human respect. We must also extend the understanding of what this community to those across the globe who favor the struggle for dignity and respect instead of the struggle for domination and dictatorial control. Without doing so, the extremists among us will always be able to rile an unfounded fear of the other "out there," and we will again be distracted by phantoms and tricks of rhetoric, instead of addressing the very real problems we have and which will be coming in the future. We are the first generation to live in a truly global community. That community is going to continue to grow closer and more intimate, and we have within us the capability to create a vision for the future that is compelling, respectful and dignified enough to be able to put the mistakes and problems of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries behind us, if we are willing to address the extremists that prevent it now.

Another world is possible.

*The images contained here have all been included as a demonstration of the fact that there are varieties of this extremism that have been beaten back before, and also that in order to be able to confront them, they must be faced and looked at for what they are.

Dissent to Power: Occupy Says "You Have No Power"

2011-10-27T10:26:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking recently about the role that fear has played in the lives of Americans for so long. It's one of those thoughts that lingers in the back of my mind, just coming and going, inserting itself occasionally. I have the definite feeling that the nations response to 9/11 is as much a part of what created the Occupy movement as the economic situation, though it seems to be something so deeply set in the Occupiers that they take it for granted, and don't consciously think about it. It's probably been on my mind because realistically, the Occupiers that I have been interacting with in person at Occupy Richmond and online from a number of the other Occupations are some of the most boldly courageous people I've ever met.

It's both jarring, invigorating and inspiring to see people as unafraid as they are. It's something that hasn't been a part of American society now for a long time. It seems almost as if these are people who have reached a point where they just can't live with the fear anymore. This isn't to say they don't feel the very natural and normal fear of getting their skulls cracked by police or some other form of violence, but they're willing to accept that possibility so that the rest of their lives and the rest of the time they spend amongst each other and in public space isn't constantly spent in a state of fear. It is as if the combination of 9/11's reality, the politicization of fear, the fear for their economic future and the fear about the future of the nation and the world have pushed them to a point that requires a choice. They are either going to surrender and submit, accept that they are going to spend the rest of their lives being afraid and terrified by more possibilities and circumstances than could possibly be listed or they are going to stand up and start being proactive as a way to combat that fear.

What we're seeing in the Occupy movement and particularly in those cities who have been under assault by the police, is a refusal to fear the government and state. I also think that the "lack of a coherent message" has to do with that same refusal to continue to be afraid. Fear itself isn't something solid and measurable. It's amorphous and vague, so the reaction to it is somewhat amorphous and vague. Because Occupy hasn't tied it's wagon to any particular political party or ideology that the media and the political elite can easily quantify and qualify, they think there is no direction, there is no demand, there is no central idea. It's quite possible that the central idea in the Occupy movement is that "You (meaning the power structure that has made decisions that effect their lives) don't get to scare the crap out of us anymore. If we stand, fall, fail or succeed, it will be of our own volition and the result of our own decisions. We're better off together than we are relying on you." And that is a BIG idea when you consider the depth and spread of the ramifications it holds. From the marches themselves, decrying corporate corruption of government, to the occupations of the actual parks and the refusal to accept state eviction, what it seems the media and city officials don't understand is that saying, "We're better off together than relying on you," puts into question any number of things these structures of power take for granted as part and parcel of having power. This is a group of people, a sizable majority of whom have a serious, fundamental lack of trust in what American society has come to understand are "authorities." The degree to which many of them feel the Citizens United Supreme Court decision is more than unlawful, but morally reprehensible and ethically untenable, and beyond a matter of law, strikes at the core of what it actually is to be a human being in civil society, suggests they have reached a point at which they are no longer willing to accept that what government decrees is law, is not necessarily law. In many ways, they seem to be saying (and of course, I can't speak for the "Movement") that if the government can not act with dignity, integrity, ethically and morally, then it is illegitimate and therefore, it has no authority to uphold laws the people do not recognize as legitimate.

For all their bluster and pageantry, the Tea Party were often claiming the illegitimacy of government (though for very different reasons), but they never made acted as if they believed that. They made vague, somewhat disquieting statements and proclamations related to revolutions, succession and so forth, but they fundamentally acted as if the government, economic system, media and political establishment are authorities. Occupy has taken their own grievances, and acted directly on them. They have made them operational. The comparison that's being made so often now between Occupy and the Tea Party misses something fundamentally important. The Tea Party strove to be a media event engaged in public education. The Occupy movement is, so far, a social protest movement engaged in creating a new kind of public discussion altogether. One assumes the validity of using or manipulating the current systems of authority and communication, where the other disregards them almost entirely.

The Occupy movement isn't acting like a bunch of "destruction thirsty anarchists" (which is the favorite characterization of anarchists in the media) either. They are instead acting as if common law is the actual law of the land, and the modified consensus model they are using develops enough respect between individuals and dignity as a community that individuals then choose to follow the decisions of their General Assemblies. Given the ferocity of the violence they've faced in a number of different cities, their adherence to their ideas of common law are kind of astounding. I haven't yet heard of an Occupation that didn't adopt non-violence in the General Assembly, and in the face of what has sometimes been shocking and terrible violence, they've followed that decision through. The closest thing to a violent act that I've seen documented was a group of protestors taking the orange plastic netting the NYPD have been using to kettle them, and then throwing it in the trash. It was again, an outward demonstration that "you don't get to make decisions for us," in this case a decision about where they can and can't go. When they had successfully taken the netting, they went on their way.

During last nights March for Solidarity that #OWS held to symbolize their solidarity with Occupy Oakland, they even managed to pull a number of their fellow protestors away from the police. They are again saying, "You don't have our consent to do that. We don't allow it." That's a new development, and an outgrowth of the violence the police have brought to Occupations across the country. They aren't breaking their own rules and taking violent action in return. Instead, they're further removing recognition of illegitimate law, which is the very basis of non-violent protest in the first place. Non-violence as a philosophy for social change isn't about getting your head beaten in and not responding. It's about refusing to acknowledge and act in accordance with illegitimate laws and structures of power and inequality. In essence, it follows the logic that the ultimate form protest isn't angry destruction, but completely lack of acknowledge meant, that hate isn't the opposite of love, the refusal to even acknowledge somethings existence is. In this way, the Occupiers are turning on the political establishment, media, and economic structure the very same kind of disrespect they've been shown. What has come from this, is the recognition of millions of Americans that the laws they are breaking and the structures of power they are representing are inhumane. Non-violence is a call to the humane within every human being by forcing a spotlight on the inhumanity of laws and power structures. Every time a video or picture surfaces showing the brutal methods used to enforce simple local ordinances that are at best, misdemeanors, it calls into question the reason for that laws existence and the methods used to enforce it.

They haven't come to where they are, to act as they have out of some simple minded desire for more than they have. They've come here because the power structures of their society have essentially been acting as if they only exist in terms of commerce and consumption, that they aren't human beings, that they don't have basic, fundamental rights, and essentially that it doesn't matter who or what "holds these truths to be self evident." Occupiers are challenging that. They are challenging the idea that power is as power does and that power is created out of power. They are saying, "No. Your power comes from an agreement we've all accepted. You've broken that agreement, and we no longer recognize your power. WE, after all, are the one's who allow you to have power and WE'RE seriously considering taking it away from you." And that is the basis of the reaction from police and city governments, the frantic scrambling by the individuals who have power. They will do things horrific and degenerative to civilized society, just to hold power.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has waged the most sound, logical and honest challenge of power that the political, financial, media and other elites have seen since the Civil Rights movement. They are essentially, the continuation of and push to see the fruition of the process that movement began. Consider the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't killed until he started standing up for the economic rights of sanitation workers, and all of this makes a good deal more sense.

Occupy Richmond, Oct. 15, 2011

2011-10-19T12:39:00.000-07:00

Note: This is a two part post. Part One is The Facts. Part Two is What I Actually See.

The Facts:

With the Occupy movement going worldwide, in cities big and small, Richmond was never going to let everyone else have all the fun. The first day of Occupy Richmond drew a wide variety of people from a multitude of backgrounds. Recent college grads under a mountain of debt who can't find jobs that support said debt are well represented, working class people who are unemployed, underemployed or employed at wages that fall far below affording the vanities like gasoline, heating, electricity, food and in an increasingly digital society, internet could be found there. Richmond's special variety of anarchists, communists and libertarians are all gathered round the fire for real change that Occupy Wall Street lit as well. Considering the nature of the Occupy protests across the globe, one wouldn't necessarily be surprised to see this collection of people marching down the street and yelling, "All night, all day, Occupy RVA." The surprising element in the crowd for the march from Monroe Park, where the 99%-er's held their third General Assembly, was the number of retired and upper middle class people who aren't necessarily struggling, and who are most definitely not the people that come to mind when Americans hear the term radical (though that doesn't stop many Richmond area publications from doing so).

Using a modified consensus model, adapted from the same method used in New York, it took slightly more than two hours for the group gathered at Monroe Park to decide that Kanawha Plaza was the best location in Richmond to begin their occupation. After a lengthy discussion, the other choice they'd previously agreed would be on the agenda, Monument Avenue, was put down.

The groups facilitators (participants who have volunteered and gone through a quick training on how to mediate the consensus process) also laid out where things stood legally. They had been in regular contact with the Captain of Richmond City Police's Special Events Unit. He had assured them that he had no intention of attempting break up their occupation, should they choose to occupy Kanawha Plaza. He had promised that they would get a permit to for the park, port-o-potties, extra trash cans etc. Occupy Richmond was informed at 9 p.m. on Friday, October 14th that Mayor Dwight Jones had called an after hours special session in order to issue a proclamation to the police, forcing them to enforce all city encampment ordinances. The result being, that if any of the participants of Occupy Richmond were in any public park after dark, they would be issued trespassing citations first, and if they refused to leave, would be arrested.

The question then became do they occupy the park or do they occupy the sidewalk that surrounds the park, which citizens have every right to use, no matter the time of day. The stipulation being that there is no sleeping on the sidewalks. The arguments for occupying the park surrounded the idea that if the Occupy movement, as a whole, is engaged in civil disobedience, why shouldn't Occupy Richmond also do the same. "We have said we are going to occupy the park. We have to be steadfast or we aren't serious," was specifically said by someone who supported occupying the park.

Those who supported occupying the sidewalks made the argument that forcing a confrontation with the police on the very first night of the occupation was not in the group's best interest. They suggested the group would be more able to fully occupy the park once the work groups were going to be able to set up sanitation, food, communication etc. They suggested that if the occupiers were all carted off to jail on the very first night, the group would be unable to take the park later, and further support would be very hard to come by. The argument was essentially that a round of arrests on the first night of the occupation would insure that there would be no occupation at all.

Consensus could not be achieved while still in Monroe Park, and word was coming in that the police were going to move in if the group was in Monroe Park after dark. Monroe had for many years been the residence for the majority of the cities homeless. Last year, there were ordinances past about encampment, the same ordinances being used to attempt to keep Occupy Richmond from occupying Kanawha Plaza. So, the group decided to march to Kanawha and try to make the decision about whether or not to attempt to take the park once they arrived.

The crowd of three hundred plus then headed down Belvedere to Cary St, and down Cary St. to 8th St. and over to Kanawha Plaza. Police cruisers blocked cross streets allowing the group to move as a whole, and helping to insure their safety. Members of Occupy Richmond carried signs addressing the myriad issues that have catalyzed the movement and chanted "All night all day, Occupy RVA", "Hey, hey, ho, ho, corporate greed has got to go", and "the people united, will never be defeated." Upon reaching the Plaza, they used the People's Mic in order to read allowed a proclamation stapled to the sign baring the parks name. It was a statement regarding the city's encampment ordinances that the Mayor had called a special meeting to instruct police to strictly enforce, despite the fact that the city's homeless have occupied Kanawha since they had been chased out of Monroe Park. Until Occupy Richmond began considering Kanawha as their location for occupation, the city had been following a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" model in enforcing the encampment ordinances.

Surrounding the large fountain, Occupy Richmond began to try to reach a consensus about whether or not to occupy the park, possibly forcing an immediate confrontation with police or to occupy the surrounding sidewalks and try to work with the police and city unless those institutions begin attempting to use tactics of distraction, and intimidation or attempting to impede their 1st Amendment Rights. In the half hour before sunrise, the group wasn't able to reach consensus, and were informed by the group of police who had gathered across the street that they would be allowed another hour, even though the ordinance specifies that everyone must be out of the park at sunset. It was a somewhat heated discussion, but eventually, consensus was reached to occupy the sidewalk until they could have a formal meeting with the City Council in order to attempt to address the encampment ordinances through the accepted channels and means. The police seemed to be looking for a spirit of cooperation more than anything else, and the decision to restrict themselves to the sidewalk as opposed to forcing a confrontation immediately satisfied them. So far, Richmond Police Department seemed to be cooperating with Occupy Richmond.

The group then began to spread across the large area the police had designated as "sidewalk", which included a small area covered by trees, and populated by benches. A number of the crowd mentioned that this area may serve them better in the long run because of it's visibility. Kanawha Plaza is more or less sectioned off into a few pieces, a large grass area with concrete walking paths through it, with large stepped fountain separating it from the "sidewalk"area that Occupy Richmond were taking up residence. The interior of the park, though lush with grass and a number of benches is virtually out of sight from the street, because it is raised, the fountain blocks it's view the busiest corner the parks sits on, and concrete partitions block the view from the main thoroughfare passing it. The sidewalk and the corner Occupy set themselves up on has a full view of the street and the surrounding area.

After providing some food for the evening and beginning to get the Comfort Working Group into action, the remaining participants broke up into smaller groups for the long chilly night ahead. All in all, it was an uneventful evening. There was one incident at 1:15 am which someone claiming to work for a local landscaping company, though carrying a pocket camcorder, began an exchange with some of the group. One of the homeless residents of the park made his way over as it began, and it wasn't long before the individual in question proceeded to tell this young, homeless vet who'd been out of work for eighteen months that he needed to check the classifieds and get a job. It began to escalate from there, but the members of Occupy Richmond diffused the situation entirely, ushering the would be provocateur away from the park while keeping busy the vet he'd just insulted. The incident led to a discussion about how to deal with people who approached them to challenge them, and how to tell the difference between someone who was genuinely interested in learning more and having a dialog and people who are attempting to provoke members of the group against the non-violent stance they have adopted.

There was a good deal of pacing, hot tea and coffee, and laughter until sunrise, when a member of the greater community who is sympathetic to the Occupy movement stopped by with hot doughnuts. He was greeted with warmth and excitement by the sixty-five people who'd spent the an unseasonably chilly night on the sidewalk of Kanawha Plaza.

What I Actually See:

Occupy Wall St. and the many other locations that have sprung up across the nation and the world (including Occupy Richmond) have been painted as a ragtag group of trust fund hippies who need to go out, get a job, grow up and stop complaining. They're being painted as wannabe radicals, layabouts, ignorant children being taken by some shadowy organization or other. The media keeps saying, "What do they want?" as if the general bend of the signs, slogans, language, organization and decision making doesn't heavily allude to it.

What I actually saw was a group of Americans, of different backgrounds and ages, saying they are taking back the responsibility of living in, and governing a democracy. There are no demands because there are no demands to be made, they're making the changes they want to see. It's a set of actions. They have found a method of forming a consensus, which can be a messy and slow process, but they're doing it. They are saying they are no longer content to have corrupted politicians representing them. They're out there, representing themselves. They are saying they're no longer going to be content with bread and circuses, that the political and economic systems inability to address their needs, beliefs and morals is no longer acceptable. They're working together to address them. They're not content anymore to "hope" things are going to "change." They are changing them. They are saying they won't be slaves to private debts accrued to institutions preserved with public funds. They are saying they've paid a hefty enough toll to thieves already.

Far from being a group of know nothings attempting to avoid the responsibility of any actual employment or accountability, they're taking on the responsibility to reclaim democracy from the forces that have undermined and essentially stolen it. They are taking on the greatest responsibility an American citizen can have, and they are expending a great deal of effort to do so. It is no small undertaking to establish one of these occupations. It is a logistically challenging to say the least, much less getting a group as diverse, both demographically and ideologically, as this one to work together to meet the essential needs of the group, but they're doing it. When not directed by professional organizers, it takes a even more work because they are figuring it out and learning as they go, and they're doing so quickly and efficiently.

The media have also begun to compare the Occupy protestors with the Tea Party. Though some of the grievances they have lodged are similar to the Tea Party, there is one extremely significant difference. It is the thing that has been required of every successful movement in American history, and was missing from the Tea Party; sacrifice. The Tea Party threw rotten fruit from the balcony. They held large, well funded rallies with speakers and politicians that came and catered to their every proclamation. Ultimately, they failed though. They still have some degree of influence on one part of the political duopoly, but they aren't a driving force in American politics anymore. They were co-opted. It was possible for them to be co-opted specifically because the Tea Party never made any sacrifices for all of this change they demanded. They never did much of anything but show up, lodge their grievances, put hats and costumes, call people names and go home when it was all done. They screamed about the illegitimacy of one institution or another, but they never directly defied it either. They organized, made a lot of noise, and ended up throwing around a whole lot of money, but they never sacrificed anything but their time. The Tea Party didn't even become irrelevant because they were co-opted, they essentially became irrelevant because when it became evidently clear that they were fighting so they wouldn't have to sacrifice anything, it became clear that they would never be able to achieve anything. I understood and sympathized with the Tea Party's rage, but they were essentially just doing exactly the same thing as the "establishment" politicians they hate. Politicians take polls to find out what to say. The Tea Party's been weened on fifty years of the mainstream media they decried, so they knew more than anyone else what to say to get the attention of people who think like them. Either way, there was a whole lot of talk, and very little sacrifice.

The people of the Occupy movement are making great sacrifices to see the changes they want come to fruition. Across the country ordinary people are sacrificing their personal safety by facing police brutality, sacrificing their possible futures and their safety by facing arrest and most importantly for the United States, they are sacrificing their comfort on a daily basis. Despite what most of the media would have us believe, the accommodations in an Occupied park are not what the majority of Americans would describe as comfortable. It's mid-October, and most of the country is getting chilly, if not downright cold. Rain is a constant problem to deal with. Food is available, but it's rarely hot. The Occupied camps are chaotic and constantly noisy, quiet is nearly impossible to come by. There is something to be done in every single minute, someone who needs attention, a task that needs to be tended to, a necessity that has to be met. Piece of mind and a moments peace have to be sought on forays away from camp to coffee shops, restaurants, libraries, book stores etc. Even then, when members of the larger community realize an Occupier is among them, there are questions and praise (at best), remarks, reprimands and hostility (at worst). I joined them, in large part, because it is the first movement I've seen in my lifetime whose members have been willing to sacrifice for changes the majority of Americans believe are necessary. People who make sacrifices for the things they truly believe in are that much harder to buy off, to intimidate, and most importantly, to wait out. They will be persistent.

There is a fundamental disconnect between many of the other things the media have been saying about the Occupy movement as well. In the years preceding Occupy Wall St., the conversation surrounding the younger generation has centered on the idea that the emergence of new technology has corrupted them somehow. They were supposed to be selfish, disconnected (from human emotional experience), socially challenged, computer/reality television/video game addicted drones who were seemingly unable to handle the realities of modern American life. Now, the participants of Occupy are somehow anarchists (which takes some time to achieve, because you have to... well... read), communists (which also takes some self education), do nothing hippies, and trust fund kids. All of that seems to eschew the fact that the young people in the movement have grabbed a firm hold of the mantra "We are the 99%", specifically because it isn't all about them, and that they are taking the future directly in their own hands because they don't feel those in charge of handing them the reigns when their time comes are going to leave them anything but a smouldering pile of ash. The communities they are establishing are proving they understand very well how to have social interactions with other human beings, and that they are probably more capable of establishing emotional connections than the journalists and elites who've spent the last five or ten years fretting over them.

Of the not as young people, there is a trend. They tend to either be people who have been involved in activism at one point or another in their lives or they are people who played by all of the rules, only to find out after their lives had been completely turned upside down, that the game has been rigged from the beginning. I feel a strange kinship with these people. I've spent a good deal of time in my life trying to convince them that the game was rigged, and that they needed to do something along these lines. I tried very hard to make people see things they were not able to let themselves see. It's a frustrating thing, and after a while, I wasn't always very nice about it. Either way, it was that intent that led to my often ending up with a feeling that I was on the outside of the majority of the society I live in (and by a pretty significant percentage). In many ways, I know that wasn't true, but in this one it actually was true. In this one, I've been in a very small minority for most of my life. And now, many of the exact same kinds of people who would have been very angry with my constant focus on these issues are there, standing next to those younger people in Zucotti Park, Kanawha Plaza and all the other Occupied locations across the country. I just feel very bad for them now. I look at them, and to have worked for something for so long, only to have it stolen away, and to have everyone know very well who the thieves are and do nothing. They went to college (when it was still affordable, and in that, the are vocal in their support of those who are swimming in college debt), the bought houses, they worked hard and saved... and for some of them, the house, the savings and the jobs are gone. It's a level of betrayal I can't really imagine.

What I'm actually seeing, when I'm down there in Kanawha Plaza, is the kind of America, and the kind of Americans I had lost any hope might ever exist. They are people engaged in a struggle for their future, without losing sight of the humanity of the people who are going to occupy that future. That, it seems, is a direct contradiction to the occupation of American culture, politics and society by a multinational corporate state that recognizes no humanity, and in many ways actively attempts to undermine it. It is the closest actual representation to the idealized America people makes speeches about, go to war to die for, and fight at home to defend, that I've ever seen.

Once I was old enough to be in high school, when people would ask me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I'd often say writer or journalist because it was the closest my mind could come to matching the things I really wanted to do. I didn't have words for it then, but had I have known any of this was possible or was coming, I'd have said, "I want to be a 99%er." At my best, I'm usually a skeptic. At my worst, I've been a nihilist. And for the first time in my life, I can be very proud to just be one of the 99%. The first part of this post, the "facts" would have told you none of this by itself. This second part of this post is as much fact as the first.

A Boy, His Dog, And Everything Else

2011-10-01T16:43:00.000-07:00

I'm going to describe to you an incident I witnessed a few minutes ago.

My girlfriend and I (girlfriend doesn't quite describe our relationship, I don't think, but we're not married, and partner is more than a little too clinical to describe it as well, so I'm stuck with girlfriend as the label to identify a relationship that is quite a bit more than that) had been to buy a new bed for one of our dogs. He had a leg amputated a few months ago after a break revealed the first occurrence of bone cancer. He hasn't been as ambulatory since, and wore the padding out of the bed he's had the last few years. The latest x-ray came back with a positive result, showing that the cancer we're told will inevitably spread to his lungs has yet to show up there.

We had just stopped by a flower shop on one of the busier roads in the near West End of Richmond (Patterson, for those of you familiar with the area). Before going in, I ventured across the street to grab a pack of cigarettes from the 7-11. As I was walking up, I saw a kid sitting on the curb just outside. He was in his mid-twenties, and skinny enough to suggest he may not necessarily be malnourished, but he's missed a few more meals than is probably best for his health. Getting closer, I realized he was talking to his dog, a small white Shepherd mix that looked underweight in the same way. The kid was wearing the uniform of the kind of anarchist gutter punk I've come across in my travels. You may know exactly what I'm talking about by that description or you may not, but if you've spent any time in an urban area of any size or it's accessible surroundings, you would recognize the uniform if you saw it. He was leaning on a sleeping bag, and had next to him a guitar and a mandolin, and was speaking to the dog in emphatic tones about the fact that he was going to venture inside the store in a moment. The way he spoke to the dog suggested to me either that he was mildly mentally disabled, intoxicated by one substance or another, possibly both or he'd possibly managed to fry a good bit of his brain through the habitual abuse of one or (likely) more of a variety of substances. It was curious, but nothing I haven't seen before.

I went in, bought my cigarettes, and headed out. Passing by, I overheard him explaining to the dog that it was her job (Lucy) to protect his stuff. If anyone tried to take anything, she should bite them, kill them for all he cared. A little over the top, to be sure, but I can certainly be guilty of a degree of hyperbole in the same way. Still, the way he was talking to the dog was unusual, and it was enough for me to wonder whether or not someone in his condition would be able to take care of a dog. He was talking to the dog very directly as if it actually understood him. If he was under the weight of a mental disability, it may preclude him from completely understanding, interpreting or foreseeing the needs of a dog, and if he was under the weight of a severe enough substance abuse problem to land him on the streets, with nothing more than a sleeping bag for shelter, could he really be expected to take care of a life other than his own with any more care than he already had his own? I thought there was a good chance the answer was no, in either case. At the same time, the options left open to anyone in these situations at a point like that are not good, to say the absolute least. Dog people, like myself, usually speak to their dogs. They do so less in the belief that the dog may somehow understand what they're saying than out of the knowledge that the dog doesn't understand what they're saying, but that the tone of their voice and the body language are what the dog is attuned to, and that it doesn't matter what they're saying, but that it's important to the dog that you're giving them attention enough to speak to them and to attend to them in a loving and compassionate way. Other than food and security, it is literally what the dog lives for and has evolved to want. It's not much to ask considering that the dog is essentially the result of longest running eugenics experiment in the history of the world. We have modeled and bred them to be what we have wanted, according to our lifestyles or our aesthetic desires in concert with whatever happened to be in fashion at a given point in our history. There is, at this point, a good pile of evidence to suggest no other animal has evolved in concert with mankind as the dog has, and that human civilizations may look very different than they do today if dogs hadn't been around to do things like help us herd (which helped to give us the opportunity to actually settle down long enough to begin to develop civilizations), provide warning and notice of danger (be it invading tribes or large predators), and help protect us from those dangers. A pack of dogs is going to give a large bear more to think about than even a number of arrows would have. "Man's best friend," though emotionally satisfying, doesn't begin to describe what dogs actually are in relation to human beings.

I left it at that, and crossed the street to meet my fair lady at the flower shop. I met her inside and was quickly informed that the quality of their flowers wasn't high enough to justify the price they were asking. Knowing less than nothing about flowers, I leave these things completely to her discretion. We'd have to get pansy's to beautify our yard somewhere else.

As we were headed toward the car, there was yelling across the street. Of course, a disruption like that causes anyone to try and find it's origin, so I looked up quickly. The kid was yelling as the dog was headed through the convenience store/gas station parking lot, the bag of his belongings, the guitar, the mandolin and the sleeping bag all in tow, attached to the dogs leash. One look certified that the dog was running because of what was following it. I've seen it before where an animal gets spooked and jumps for some reason, and because they are attached to something that moves behind them, they get even more spooked, and head off in a terrified fright. This dog was being chased by a noisy thing that it couldn't get away from, and because of the cargo's weight, was slowing her down, scaring her even more. I realized in horror that she was headed directly for the road. It's a busy road, and on a Saturday afternoon, there are dozens of SUV's and cars speeding toward some destination. Being a resident of Richmond for quite some time now, I also know that they are full of people who are only paying the minimal amount of attention to the fact that they are in control of nearly a ton (sometimes more) of metal and plastic as they fiddle with their cell phones, talk to their husbands, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, children, and so on. Richmond has some of the worst drivers I've ever encountered, and I've lived in a number of different places. All of this is occurring to me as I'm watching the dog head as fast as it can carry it's cargo, toward the street. I was suddenly filled with a panic and rage that is usually reserved for threats to my own life. I was panicking because I thought I was about to see that dog get hit by a car, and I was enraged that it was sheer thoughtlessness that was going to cause it.

Luckily, the dog took a step off the sidewalk and hooked a left, running along the curb and then back up onto the sidewalk, with the yelling gutter punk now trailing her. Had her leash and it's attachments not swung around a sign and stopped her, that dog would have kept on running for a good long time. El Punko caught up to her, untangled her, and walked back over to the 7-11, this time trying to secure her leash to the trash can. I watched all of this, waiting to see if the leash was actually going to stay on the trash can or if the lid he'd looped it around would stay on or if the dog was about to be running headlong toward the street again.

Leaning on the car, it struck me that I'd been correct that this kid was in no way capable of taking care of the dog. Whatever the reason, he'd just proven it by attempting to secure the leash to a number of items which are by their very design, portable and not secured to a single location. I started thinking that I should probably do something. What though? Should I go over and attempt to take the dog from him? First, in the state he was in, that was not going to go over very well, especially after the excitement of the dogs unexpected excursion. I've just gotten too old to be fighting with unbalanced homeless people and explaining to a police officer how I ended up in a fight with a homeless person in one of the posh sections of the greater Richmond area. Second, what the hell was I going to do with the dog? We've already got two at home, one of which can be a little bit shifty where other dogs are concerned. The other one, even though he's getting around very well for a three legged dog, is still a three legged dog that it seems is going to need a lot of our care and attention in the not so distant future. The other option would be to call the police. This is possibly a worse option. A person in his state of mind, especially after the excitement of Lucy's little excursion, is not going to respond well to the arrival of the police. The chances are better than very good that he ends up behind bars, probably after few painful though not life threatening injuries incurred while resisting arrest (actually or rhetorically). He might be disabled, a drug addict or just an asshole, but those aren't very good reasons to end up in jail. I've never seen a situation like this where the involvement of the police hasn't made the situation worse than it was to begin with.

If he's mentally disabled, chances are good he's going to spend at least a few hours in the clink, and after they figure it out, he's going to end up under the care of social services. I've dealt with social services on a few occasions. There are a lot of good people involved in that system, who want to see what's best done for the people who end up there in need of their help, but the system in which they are working is fundamentally broken and less often takes into account what any particular individual needs so much as it does the blanket mandates a given state has handed down. That's not even taking into account the fact that funding has always been abysmal, and has only gotten worse in recent years. And... if he is mentally disabled and on the street, there's already been a failure of some kind. Either his family didn't have the necessary understanding to give him the best opportunities at living or they didn't have the resources, and this is where he's ended up. If he's already been involved in social services (which has a very high probability), he's still there, on that curb, underfed, with a sleeping bag for his only form of shelter and a dog he can't take care of.

If he's a drug addict, and intoxicated or has damaged his brain to the degree that he sounded the way he did, that doesn't mean he belongs in jail either. The inevitable confrontation with a guy who is trying to explain to him that he obviously can't take care of his only companion or the arrival of police (who in Richmond's West End don't take kindly to homeless punks causing disruptions) and the inevitable confrontation with them would be what led him to end up in jail, but they wouldn't be the actual reason he was in jail. He'd be in jail because he was a drug addict, which is what put him on that curb, trying to tie his dog. Chances are also good that being in jail wouldn't change that either. In the condition he was in, jail would just make him meat, someone for actual criminals to abuse and take advantage of. It also doesn't tend to have a very good rate of rehabilitation for drug addicts, and adding a criminal record to whatever problems he already has certainly isn't going to make getting his ass off of the street any easier.

All of this was occurring to me as he was tying his dog to the trash can, and the panic had passed when the dog turned out of the street, but the anger was just rising. I wasn't angry at him anymore though. He's just some guy, disabled by either a mental handicap or the mind bending, long term effects of drugs and alcohol. I was angry that there weren't any good options, that the right thing was to get that dog in the hands of someone who could actually take care of it, and get him the care he needed, but there weren't any actual good options for either. The only option was essentially to leave it all as it was, when what that really means is that at some point in the future, there is going to be some kind of intervention. It might not necessarily have anything to do with the dog, but at some point, someone in that condition is going to do something, whether he means to or not, and it's going to draw the attention of the "authorities" of whatever variety they happen to be. If I were able to bet that the intervention of those "authorities" was in response to something much more problematic than not being able to take care of his dog very well, I would, because I'd win. It'll be the deterioration of his health or a criminal act, which then makes him fit much more neatly into the narratives we continue to tel about these things, and he'll be reaping the consequences related to it. He'll be the result of conservative budget cuts that gut human health services or he'll be another criminal who is detrimental to society or who has to "pay" for their crime, by doing nothing that could in any way be considered productive or useful, in a cell, with actual predators surrounding him. Either way, he'll fit the narratives better than he would now.

Mostly because I'm in my second year of community college, I've spent a good deal of time trying to figure out what kind of life I want. It's really a result of the fact that I have to figure out what I want to get a degree in, which more or less has some consequence in relation to what kind of career I want, which in turn has effects on what kind of life I can have. The only thing I know for certain at this point is that I want to have a good life. For me, personally, that doesn't necessarily mean the most comfortable or easy life. I've actually been happiest at points when life was not as comfortable or easy as it is currently, but was challenging in certain ways. I work hard now, meaning that I show up, actually try to do whatever it is I'm supposed to as best I possibly can, whether it be my job or school work, and I do my best to treat people with respect. I do my best to be a good boyfriend/partner/whatever you want to call it. It actually is easy in comparison to the way I lived into my mid-twenties. I don't feel very much like it's a good life though. A good life for me really means living an ethical life, and that's actually what makes the life I have now hard. This incident today is really just a crystallization of it, an example most likely to produce some degree of understanding when I explain it to someone else. How exactly do I do the right thing in a situation like the one I saw today? There are no good answers really. The options that I have available to me aren't good at all really. They produce no solution to the actual problem I was witnessing, whether the kid was disabled, a drug addict or just an asshole. They produce mechanisms that address the outburst, the incident that draws the attention of society at large, but not the problem. The "problem" to most of us, even for those that might have some degree of compassion for someone like this kid, is the intrusion an incident like this makes on their otherwise easy lives. I'm not different in that respect, but I'm probably more likely to understand the full spectrum of repercussions to the options I had.

It's seems that for the majority of people these day the options available as choices are between what's bad, what's worse, and the inactivity of no choice. Do you just give up on the mortgage that you were paying with no problem before the economy tanked, and accept the destruction of your financial life following foreclosure because it's eating up a percentage of your resources that makes you ask questions like, "Does my daughter really need a claronet and music lessons and all the benefits that come with some musical education (higher math scores, which our children are rapidly falling behind in, are just the beginning) or do we need to not eat Ramen noodles for the next month more?" Do you you go to college, which at this point more or less means at least a master's degree for it to actually give you any career benefits, and take on the monumental debt you'll incur in the process, all in hopes that the economy straightens out by the time your done or do you decide to try to somehow make your way without it or possibly attempt to start your own business in the worst economy in sixty years? Do you work those extra twenty hours a week so that you're not on the firing line when the lay offs start or do you get a second job to make some extra money or do you just have faith that everything's going to turn out alright and spend that time with your kids because they need you to be a parent?

Those questions, and the hundreds of others people have to ask themselves every single day are much like the questions I faced this afternoon, none of them presents a solution that addresses the actual problem. They are all just measures that might relieve the most immediate discomfort, while possibly exacerbating the actual problem.

Take care of yourself, we're told. Be responsible, we're told. Be a good neighbor, we're told. Be a good parent, we're told. Be a good employee, we're told. Work hard and you'll get ahead, we're told. And yet, more and more, the options available to us in the pursuit of being those things don't add up to actually achieving them. More and more, we're left with a choice between, bad, worse and do nothing. It's something we often experience personally, alone, in the isolation of ourselves, and something we are rarely able to articulate in the moment we're actually living it. The thing is, right now, most of us are living it. Most of us are facing bad, worse or do nothing, at best. At worst, we're facing diminishing options, essentially seeing them dwindled down to worse or nothing. We wait and we hope that it's going to get better. We wait and we hope for someone to come along who will be able to be a catalyst for something better. We wait and we hope, which for all practical purposes is doing nothing, rhetorically and in terms of the result it produces. It does nothing, but relieve the temporary discomfort of having to face decisions whose options are terrible.

And where do we look for that catalyst? Do we look to our religions, increasingly engaged in openly hostile campaigns of hate against American citizens of almost every variety depending on their particular religious stripe? Do we look to our political institutions, which have produced a political duality, a literal choice between worse and worst? Do we look to Republicans and the political right whose rhetoric has produced a generation of devotees who are absolutely blind to the fact that opportunity has never been equal in this country and that for those whom that opportunity has not been equal, working hard never got them ahead and who would sell you, me and the rest of us into slavery if they could? Do we look to Democrats and the political left, whose rhetoric has produced the kind of wide eyed idealism that leads to reality challenged "love" worshipers who can't bring themselves to contemplate that love does not solve all things and the kind of anarchist gutter punks who would rather be homeless, begging for change, often with a dog because it begs more sympathy, than to actually get a job and have to go to work? Do we look to our media, who've become less interested in providing information or education than in making sure we're placated by whatever today's car crash spectacle is, be it Michael Jackson life, his death, his funeral or the fungus on the anus of American culture that is the likes of Jersey Shore and Real Housewives of Fuckingbitchville? Do we look to the free market, which has essentially plunged us all into this hole in the first place?

For whom is this the good life?

Let's Be Honest...

2011-01-22T10:00:00.000-08:00

Let's be honest with each other here... Keith Olbermann was a blow hard. And there may be some truth to the suggestion that he contributed to the vitriolic nature our contemporary political debate has become so mired in. Countdown, though often funny and entertaining, was a good deal less informative than it was megaphonic. I do honestly think Olbermann attempts to follow the example of the likes of Edward R. Murrow, but I also think he rarely succeeds. As of now, neither Olbermann or MSBC have given anything resembling a reason for his sudden departure. Speculation abounds as a result. The coming merger of MSNBC and Comcast seems to be the prevailing theory, be it through Comcast's demands to drop Olbermann or significantly change the editorial content of the show or Olbermann deciding he'd rather not work for Kabletown (internet speak for Comcast). So far though, it is all just speculation, and as with many things that happen in the upper echelon's of the corporate media world, we may never get the real story.

All of that being true, this doesn't mean that Olbermann and Countdown didn't serve good purpose. In 2003, there wasn't another nationally televised voice suggesting there was some logical fallacy to the Bush administrations claims that war in Iraq was a necessity. As tired as I've personally become of the political mind meld machinery at work on both the conservative and progressive sides, the fact is that he was right, and had there been a little more of a rush on the part of the media as a whole to actually analyze the case being presented to them instead of worrying about the future of their opportunities for access to a notoriously inaccessible administration, there may be many hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqi's still living today who have subsequently been killed in the most useless of wars. If the national level conservatives were as principally fiscally conservative as so many of them claim, they would at least recognize that there would have been billions of dollars of American taxpayer money saved, a slightly less bloated national debt, and that there was no connection in any realm, except in some possible alternate universe, to national security. We went to war in Iraq because it was good politics for the Bush administration and it privatized the profits while socializing the losses. Anyone who suggests otherwise should be directed to the fact that the man who PRESIDED (as in was President) during 9/11 and the Katrina debacle cites a loud mouthed, attention whoring rapper calling him a racist as the worst moment of his presidency. Priorities, principles and country first indeed.

There's also a good deal to be said about Olbermann's recent statement related to "objective journalism,"and the role it played in the lead up to the Iraq war. Presenting facts doesn't make any news, media or journalistic outlet partisan, which is what both sides will claim when faced with facts that contradict their narrative. In the run up to the Iraq war, one of the reasons none of the other major media and news outlets, nor any of their highly paid "experienced" talking heads would challenge the narrative presented by the Bush administration is that doing so was being assailed as being partisan or even better, unpatriotic. Though some of our more devout political figures might suggest otherwise, there is no such thing as witchery, so being called a partisan does not magically turn someone into a partisan any more than being called a newt turns one into a newt, a platypus or an intellectual titan for that matter. The rush to maintain the veneer of "objectivity"as opposed to actually maintaining the objectivity of factual representation kept one of the most vital pieces of a functioning democracy from serving it's function at all.

His point about the false equivalency propagated by contemporary media following John Stewart's "Restored To Sanity" rally was also important. Both sides of the political spectrum engage in propaganda, this is very true, and something I personally find abhorrent. I tend to think that if our political figures actually cared as much about The People, The Country and The Constitution as they do their campaign coffers and retaining the perk-aliciousness of their offices, they'd be willing to be honest with the American people, and we'd eventually be able to handle it. That being said, the political left has no equivalent to Birthers (those who still believe, regardless of the availability of proof to the contrary that Barack Obama is not a U.S. born citizen) or Deathers (those who believe the health care bill instituted government run panels to decide who is useful enough to be granted medical care and who is useless enough to die), because they're mainstream pundits haven't flirted with anything nearly as absurd. The equivalency Stewart suggested in his announcement of the rally was the Truther movement. Unlike the contemporary narrative which suggests our political spectrum is a straight line, on which one end is the left and the other the right, our political spectrum is actually circular, and the Truther movement is where the circle closes. Though the entire movement hinges on the suggestion that the destruction of World Trade Center building number 7 was actually a controlled demolition, the reasons they cite create a picture of a group which reaches to the most extreme ends of both the left and the right. Some claim that 9/11 as a whole was either purposely executed or willfully allowed to happen by senior members of the Bush administration as a way to create a security state and to feed contracts and subsidies to the various corporate entities Cheney and his ilk favored. That would be the left side of the Truthers. Then there's the right side of that movement who believe that the entire thing was orchestrated by an Illuminati like organization led by the Rothschild family, who in some cases are actually believed to be the Illuminati, in an attempt to create a security state and to gain control of the most powerful nation in the world, and hence be able to start having an even more direct control over the world economy which will be instituted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (the one world government and economy part of this having been co-opted from or being an offshoot of the nationalist militia movements and conspiracy theories which dominated the fringe of politics in the 90's). They believe this is next step in a long gestating plan to achieve one world government and one world economy. Depending on the school of thought, this plan began not long after World War II or stretches as far back as The Renaissance. The Truther movement contains so many different internal sects that these two are the only one's I'm describing because they at least have their own internal logic, flawed as it may be by both fact and rationality. The majority of the rest make these two sound infinitely sane, and the cover the entirety of the political spectrum. I know this not because I sympathize with this deeply sad and pathetic conspiracy craziness but because I find the degree of insanity people are willing to believe fascinating and I've always had an internal instinct that suggests it's a good idea to keep an eye on what is being saluted on the flagpole of Crazy Town, U.S.A. The problem with all of this being that a number of the right's talking heads and flapping lunatics have been purposely flirting with many of these one government, one world economy crazies, specifically to keep hold of a motivated and anxiously terrified base that will enact their visions which less serve even a political ideology or misguided belief in national interest as they do their various money making scams. Buy gold, stop the one world economy, buy backpacks full of freeze dried food, be prepared for the one world government... etc. And stock up on ammunition, because either they'll be coming for you and you'll have to resort to Second Amendment remedies when the FEMA camps are finished being constructed. Don't do any of these things because the people who advertise with me will pay me more based on their sales spiking when I make these completely unfounded claims or because they contribute financing to put on my various tent revival/political rallies... that wouldn't be principled. There is no equivalent of this on what is popularly considered the mainstream political left. Though there is definitely a propaganda machine for it, it's still largely the traditional variety of political speech and political organizations. The equivalency suggested in the media today, including those often criticized as "leftist propagandists" (I have a friend who regularly refers to CNN, the one network which has attempted to keep the veneer of objectivism at the cost of it's own ratings, and often as a result it's journalistic integrity, as the "Communist News Network," because they've refuted things offered as fact on Fox) is at this point in time patently false. The New York Times has probably angered the Obama administration more than any other single American entity (including Fox News) by cooperating with Wikileaks on a number of occasions, and it's still lambasted as a leftist media outlet. Calling it a partisan outlet does not make it so. Actual journalism is not always objective, but it is always open and attempts as best as the individuals and organizations engaged in it are capable, to present facts.

Olbermann has also consistently done something none of the commentators "on the other side" were able to do for the first six years of the disastrous implosion that was the Bush administration. Until it was clear that their unquestioning support of the Bush agenda was threatening their hold on power, the political and media machine on what is considered the mainstream right were supporting every single proposition and policy, including the privatization of Social Security, which if it had been allowed, would made any current worries about Social Security's solvency look quaint in the aftermath of the economic meltdown of 2007 and the Great Recession that has ensued. Olbermann has consistently criticized the Obama administration on a number of issues, and in some of them been remarkably more consistent than the sudden debt hawkishness right wing media adopted after eight years of cheering the Bush administration as it drowned the nation in largely unnecessary debt. He's consistently criticized the handling of Guantanamo Bay, the extremely slow willingness to tackle Don't Ask Don't Tell or any of the rest of the issues related to civil rights regardless of sexual orientation, the expansion of a largely secret war in Pakistan, and the beginnings of new secret wars in both Yemen and the horn of Africa. These are all things that if given the weight of intellectual consistency, should be accepted by anyone who believes in individual liberty (there's no better practice in oppressive governmental policy than practicing those policies on the cultural "other"), the principle of open fiscal policy (if we haven't already learned, it costs a shit ton of money to conduct military operations, especially in the post Rumsfeld privatized military, keeping them as secret as possible doesn't make them cheaper), which both parties claim to support, but only tend to do so sparingly, in opposition to the other party in order to preserve the appearance of differences, when in fact both parties are controlled by the financial contributions of multi-national corporations who have no loyalty to any country or Constitution. Less than a one world government, our political parties are becoming anarcho-corporate subsidiaries. Whether or not one agrees with Olbermann's politics, he has at least been consistent in his challenge of authority and the establishment, no matter which party has been in power.

MSNBC is still running it's latest ads in the "Lean Forward"campaign that feature Olbermann, and that suggests this was a rather hasty decision on someone's part, be it their's or Olbermann's. Whether or not Comcast has been the deciding factor in Countdown's end has yet to be seen, even as the most ardent of the reaction from Olbermann's fan base is screaming for boycotts. Principally, boycotting Comcast is certainly a good idea. Their cable packages are over priced for their quality (they don't provide full 1080p, though they advertise HD, and their standard picture quality pales in comparison to some of their competitors), their customer service is at best inefficient and at worst hostile, and they are moving very quickly toward attempting to establish a communications monopoly in a world where the ability of average citizens to use those communication tools and networks is going to define the health and viability of the very possibility of a well informed electorate and healthy democracy. But, boycotting Comcast over Countdown's demise is senseless when as of yet there is no evidence to suggest a connection. The consistent baying at the moon of boycott as a response to Olbermann's departure makes no more sense than buying gold because some frothing looney on the radio says the dollar is about to come eat your children. Buy gold because precious medals have a history of appreciation, but do it sparingly, because the right wing screamers are creating a bubble in it's value. Boycotting Comcast because they're making a move to establish the kind of media monopoly in television that Clear Channel has in radio makes actual good sense. Reactionary proposals come from reactionary perspectives. Like many of the good things Olbermann had to say, and the good things he was able to bring attention to, the success of a political or socially conscious action is always diluted when it is obviously and misguidedly taken for the wrong reason, no matter how good it's results may have been. Undertaking a good idea for really poor reasons is only going to lead to further disenfranchisement among the electorate, and a further sense of hopelessness.

None of this is to suggest we have to throw the baby out with the bath water. One of the keys to restoring some semblance of real sanity to our political debate is to recognize distinctions and facts, no matter our political leanings. The facts in this case suggest that Olbermann was an unapologetic partisan, who at the same time actually attempted to hold to some principles he believed were more important than partisanship or wealth. His ability to do so without dropping to the level of rhetorical bomb throwing was often poor, we should all be able to honest agree on that much. The other side of those same facts is that even as those are his very real failings and shortcomings as a journalist and commentator, he still did some very courageous things that were of service to principles he believed in, and I'd suggest any American, if they're honest enough with themselves to look beyond the perpetuity of party can admit are admirable. He wasn't much of a journalist, you'll get no argument from me on that account. But he was willing to challenge the power structure in ways more journalists should probably attempt to. The sad truth is, what they should probably do and what they will do still look to be very different things. It leaves the impetus and responsibility on those of us who are consuming all of this news and media content to do our best to be able to recognize that though we may have respected a journalist or pundits actions or beliefs on some occasions, this makes them neither saints nor correct about everything they say or report. It actually is our personal responsibility to try, as best as we are able, to look at the situations at hand through more than just the perspective offered to us by the various talking heads of any political persuasion. No one can do that for us. It is not our personal responsibility to be loyal to a political party. It should be both parties responsibility to be loyal to us, but I think it's pretty clear that they abdicate that responsibility when it is expedient and/or profitable.

Distinctions are Good for You, Make Them

2010-12-20T11:15:00.000-08:00

The media and "serious news" outlets are aflutter this morning with reports of the leaked police report in Julian Assange's case. The anchors are breathlessly recounting Assange's aggravation with the incident. His lawyers are claiming it's a direct attempt to influence the criminal case against him. The media is currently covering the "what goes around, comes around" angle. All they seem to be interested in is that Assange, who established an organization with the specific intent of publishing government and corporate leaks is now up in arms over documents related to him being leaked. I'm human enough to realize there is at the least some naivete on Assange's part, if not hypocrisy altogether. The problem with this narrative is that it doesn't draw any distinctions between Assange, the organization Wikileaks, and government agencies. It draws almost no distinctions which can be even tangentially considered relavent.

If Julian Assange has committed a crime, he deserves punishment commensurate with anyone else who has been convicted of the same crimes. No more, no less. I would not, and will not make any argument which would at all suggest otherwise. If what the women who are accusing Assange have presented is true, they deserve their day in court, they deserve justice. Sex crimes should be taken seriously, always. This isn't to say I'm completely beyond questioning whether or not there is a connection between the United State's government's displeasure with Assange and these allegations resurfacing after having already been dismissed once. Even if there is U.S. intervention at work, that neither makes Assange guilty, innocent or not guilty as charged.

Assange has yet to be convicted of anything, and there's no evidence of the U.S. actually putting political pressure on Sweden to bring the charges back. For Assange's supporters, the public statements of politicians in the U.S. are enough to be sure of some kind of intervention. Assange's detractors are sure he's a criminal, if not in the case against him, then in the espionage case the Justice Department is rumored to be building. They want him behind bars, either way, less because any evidence has been produced that the Wikileaks cables have produced harm to Americans than because it's their instinctual emotional reaction on matters which they deem related to national security.

Joe Biden is proclaiming Assange a terrorist. Wikileaks detractors, and unfortunately their supporters are all conflating Assange and Wikileaks as one singular entity. He's either the savior of freedom of the press and freedom of speech and a free internet or he's a criminal, terrorist, anti-American (how a citizen of a nation other than the U.S. could be called a traitor to the U.S. is still beyond me), and should be killed, literally assassinated.

What's missing in all of this is any actual distinctions. Assange may have started Wikileaks, but he is not unto himself Wikileaks. It can be guaranteed that if Assange is found guilty and jailed, Wikileaks will be treated as if it in itself is a rapist... for a while anyway. If they were to publish a documented account of governmental or corporate wrongdoing of a sufficiently outraging caliber, they'll be right back in the news, and back at the top of the media heap. If they were to produce evidence of a campaign of widespread voter fraud in traditionally conservative districts, targeted against conservative candidates, you'd be sure to see the exact same talking heads who have called for Assange's assassination very quickly making the distinction between Wikileaks as an entity and Assange as an individual, and probably calling them the saviors of American democracy to boot. The exact same could be said for the liberal establishment figures who've come out against Wikileaks and attacked Assange. Our political parties and politicians would and will change their tune as soon as some information Wikileaks unearths fits the narrative they favor.

Julian Assange isn't a terrorist either. He may be many things, including possibly a sexual predator, but a terrorist is not one of those things. He may have stricken terror in the hearts of politicians and professional bureaucrats everywhere, but that doesn't make him a terrorist either. A terrorist is someone who committs an act or campaign against a nation or a people with the specific intent of instilling fear in that populace through violent attacks, without regard for the distinctions between military, government, civilain, corporation or individual. Terrorists try to kill people, and I've yet to be able to find one who chooses to do so by burying them in documents, most of which are boring, uneventful reports of the innane nature of diplomacy. Assange isn't a terrorist, not matter how frightened politicians and bureaucrats may now be of Wikileaks making their classified communications public. Everyone who does something with some political dimension that a U.S. politician does not like is not a terrorist. He may be egotistical, naive, attention hungry (and what politician can really take anyone else to task for that?) or any number of other things we attribute as negative personality traits. None of this makes him a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Andrew Stack was a terrorist. James von Brunn was a terrorist. Faizal Shahzad is a terrorist. Osama Bin Laden IS STILL A TERRORIST, whom we seem to have forgotten we were at one point looking for. With the actual number of terrorists there are in the world, it's important that we keep a good, firm grip on what a terrorist actually is, because if we don't, we're more likely to miss a real one because we're distracted by trying to take action against someone who might be an idiot and even a criminal, but not a terrorist. It's kind of like saying Saddam Hussein is a terrorist and focusing on toppling his government, and forgetting to catch or kill the man who was actually at the heart of three thousand American deaths. In this case, luckily, it doesn't also result in the deaths of thousands more Americans. Saddam Hussein was definitely a totalitarian dictator, and an evil bastard. What he was not, was a terrorist. He certainly struck terror into the hearts of his own people, and probably a number of the multinational oil conglomerates who couldn't get their contracts on the countries oil reserves because of sanctions etc., but he was not a terrorist. These actually are important distinctions, because they actually do effect our security and our ability to navigate an increasingly complicated world.

In all of this, the real questions tend to get lost. Wikileaks and Assange's detractors are specifically counting on the debate being centered on Assange. If that is the case, discrediting Assange ends the debate. No one is going to defend a sex criminal, not even me. But that's not the real dilemma at the center of all of the controversy. It's just the new distraction, created and enabled by a lack of distinction. Wikileaks is not Assange, and the arguments about government secrecy versus a free society, the right of people to know what their governments do in their name, civil rights versus security, all of those dilemmas and discussions obviously need to be had. We've been having them since we became a sovereign nation, and we will continue to have them, but they are especially important right now because of the availability of new communications technology, new media, and a new global economic environment. We have yet to come to decisions where many of these things are concerned, and as a citizenry, if we don't have those debates and come to some form of consensus or at least delineate as clearly as we can what the arguments are on all sides, those decisions will be made for us, by governments who control trade and can impose limitations on rights of individual speech and the corporations who are quickly gaining vast amounts of control over those technologies and mediums of communication and can in turn impose their own controls over individual rights, including free speech.

The mass media are currently making the kind of disastrous mistake they also made with the War in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. No evidence of a program to even create them was unearthed in the saber rattling before or as a result of our invasion since. Our media and news outlets did a poor job of thoroughly investigating those claims or even in presenting much in the way of coverage of the relatively considerable dissent. They didn't even provide coverage of the protests prior to the war in many major cities, which numberd in the millions, literally. Right now, the claims being made are that the Wikileaks documents are putting American service people's lives in danger, both military and diplomatic. Those claims have not been substantiated at all. No one has been able to produce any evidence of harm coming to anyone in a position related diplomacy, intelligence or American military as a result of the information Wikileaks has published. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has even gone so far as to say that Wikileaks publishing of diplomatic cables will have no effect on American diplomacy, because the governments in the world know the U.S. government "leaks like a sieve," and that other governments deal with ours because it's in their interests to do so. He is obviously not a fan of Wikileaks either.

In the rush to cover the "controversy" over Wikileaks and Assange, there are things slipping through the cracks. Right now, as the START treaty is stalled in Congress, press in the Middle East who aren't quite as concerned with the horse race aspect of our politics are reporting that one of the diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks contains a claim by an Egyptian official that Egypt was offered nuclear materials and weapons following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Said official claims to have been in Moscow at the time and to have had first hand knowledge of the offer. It also says that Egypt is firmly in step with the U.S. in keeping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. This is something the citizens of the United States should know, especially when we're in the middle of a political pissing match over a nuclear arms treaty specifically designed to prevent loose nukes from ending up in the hands of countries of other entities who might want to use them against us, like say, real terrorists. These are the kinds of details that go unpublished here because there isn't room for it when what's passing for a debate related to Assange and Wikileaks is being covered wall to wall. Covering the controversy is not the same as covering the facts. Is this the diplomatic equivalent of a grade school note from Egypt that says, "I REALLY LIKE YOU," or is it something more substantive, from which we should be asking who didn't say no to the offer of nuclear weapons and materials? We'll probably never know because the kinds of news outlets who have the ability to ask these questions aren't actually asking them. They're arguing about faux terrorists and Julian Assange genital conduct, instead of actually looking at the information, investigating it's veracity and reporting that.

The fact is that the United States government and military are not at all pleased with Wikileaks, politicians and political organizations of different stripes are attacking Assange in response. But Assange is not Wikileaks (whether he's the head of the organization or not), and the information they've been releasing does not put our security at risk just because anyone says so. Whether or not Wikileaks is a new variety of press organization or some new kind of contra-national entity has yet to really be seen or even decided. And the questions presented to us by the emergence of Wikileaks and it's allies are not going to just go away because we feel like they are too hard to have a real, adult debate about. They are going to go away because we won't have an adult debate about them and the kind of big government the right of American politics is so afraid is going to make them for us, as will the kind of multinational conglomerates the left so terribly fears will impose their own decisions upon us.

MSNBC's identity crisis

2010-11-20T20:39:00.000-08:00

Two weeks ago, there was quite a controversy over the MSNBC's suspension of Keith Olbermann for making political contributions without having first obtained permission from who ever it is the NBC News Division requires you're supposed to ask. The controversy was of course about the fact that Olberman is an unapologetic partisan, and the NBC News Division was trying to maintain a reputation that apparently only they held for it. Olberman found wide support among liberals, especially on the internet. Olbermann's suspension brought to the forefront an argument that has been happening in the shadows of mainstream media for about a decade, maybe longer. This argument goes round and round the question of objective journalism, and media bias.

This week, Joe Scarborough has been suspended for the same thing. He apparently made five hundred dollar donations to a number of family members, friends and family friends who were running for local offices. Politico, which unearthed the Olbermann donations was also the first to report about Scarborough's donations, even though Scarborough has a weekly column on the site. Politico deserves some respect for running the story, in spite of the fact that it was about someone who is a weekly contributor, and who was brought on at least in part because his name recognition would help bolster the site's traffic.

I can commend MSNBC for at least applying the policy without regard to party identification. Joe Scarborough makes no secret of being a Republican and a conservative, just as Olbermann isn't trying to hide being a liberal democrat. At least the standard is applied fairly. In truth, if MSNBC were being the kind of news organization it is trying to portray itself as with that policy and those suspensions, neither would be necessary.

MSNBC, like most of television and print news media, is suffering an identity crisis. In MSNBC's case, it's not about how they are going to survive and what they are going to be in the media of the future. The question is about whether or not they want to be a partisan network. Do they want to be the left's version of Fox or do they want to be a "legitimate" news organization?

Add to this that Ted Koppel, one of the few living remainders from the days when many of the members of the news media were actually trying to be objective and legitimate, wrote an op-ed entitled "Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news." In it, Koppel excoriates both Fox and MSNBC, and obviously Olbermann and O'Reilly for their clearly partisan perspectives, and more or less laments the death of "an objective perspective" in the news. Olbermann, took the attention brought about from his suspension and the Koppel op-ed to make his case for the reason he began taking his show in a partisan direction, saying the so-called "objective, legitimate" media failed the nation and the republic miserably by never putting up any real objections to the Bush administrations reasoning for going to war in Iraq when in fact the reasoning and evidence presented by the administration was patently false.

The question of MSNBC's future and what their public image is going to be will eventually be decided through their own decisions and the reaction those decisions draw from their viewership. The subject of their viewership is actually what all of this is about. Olbermann's push to the left brought his ratings up substantially, and in the years that progressed, Olbermann became their highest ratings draw. In response, they started bringing on other liberal commentators to host shows. MSNBC decided they were going to be the liberal Fox.

There is something that MSNBC isn't taking into consideration in this calculation though. Being a liberal Fox doesn't mean presenting only a liberal perspective. It doesn't mean creating controversy where none exists or creating facts that suit the liberal narrative out of thin air. It doesn't mean being a stenographer and water carrier for the Democratic party's talking points (though they seem to have enough trouble getting their talking points circulated amongst themselves these days). It means presenting real reporting, good journalism, and yes, an objective perspective when presenting those things. It doesn't mean taking Olbermann, Maddow, McDonnell or Chris Matthews off the air. It means taking Lock Up off the air, and instead, presenting good, fact based, compelling presentations on the real topics of interest to liberals.

Instead of the kind of sensationalist programming about the craziest of the crazies and the worst of the worst in our prisons, wives who lose their minds and hide their husbands bodies in the basement crawlspace or the varieties of different doom and gloom which they spend their weekends saturating the airwaves with, they could be creating content giving the factual evidence at work behind the failure of the war on drugs, Blackwater's very interesting businesses, many other varieties of corporate corruption, governmental corruption, etc. The difference that MSNBC is looking for, and trying to create by continuing to enforce the kind of policy that has resulted in the suspensions of both Olbermann and Scarborough, is in creating an actual reputation based on the reality of their programming that proves they are a news organization by providing real news in their programming.

Watching MSNBC's daytime programming is painful if you're actually interested in information. This isn't something exclusive to MSNBC, CNN has exactly the same problem. One second they're covering the Iranian uprising, the next they're covering the what part of today's celebrity is uncovered, and in between, giving an update on the latest stock exchange numbers, the latest heartwarming story of childhood wonder or the newest instance of horror born from the American dream of domestic bliss. It's a frightening, boring programming schizophrenia.

Let's not forget that all of this started with a story by Politico, one of the most successful websites to start in the last ten years, and it covers only one thing. Politico covers nothing but politics, and those things that are at least somewhat related to politics. They don't cover Lindsay Lohan's latest escapade, the new season of Dancing with the Stars or American Idol. MSNBC could cover politics as well as Politico does, because they have the entirety of the NBC News Division at their disposal. Their foreign coverage could also be something much more in depth and informative than Politico could ever be capable of.

MSNBC, like every other news outlet, moving forward, is going to have to decide exactly what it is they want to be. If MSNBC's parent company wants to make sure it is covering all of it's bases, trying to be everything to everyone, it's not going to be able to do that through one outlet. If they're going to try to cover entertainment, MSNBC or msnbc.com aren't ever going to be able to compete with The AV Club, /Film, HitFix, Entertainment Weekly or Entertainment Tonight, they aren't going to be able to do that by creating either a site or news programming that is trying to be everything to everyone. They're never going to be able to draw the kind of hard core geek audience sites like Ain't It Cool News, Badass Digest, or CHUD do unless they dedicate a website and/or programming specifically for that. The future of media journalism is not only going to be on the internet, but by doing something specific, extremely well. The future is not going to be in being everything for everyone.

Irreality is dangerous

2010-09-13T11:28:00.000-07:00

When you believe teh gay can be cured by "rehabilitation camp", Ted Haggard doesn't have a frightening case of hypocritical megalomania- he just had a bad day. When you believe humans rode dinosaurs, people dying from inadequate medical care is either God's design or teh Satan's attempts to steer you away from your faith. When you believe the Omnipotent, Omniscient Beard in the sky is taking care of everything, the rates of poverty sky rocket. When you believe someone, anyone, is the specifically designated representative of God here on earth, and you don't question their authority, THIS IS THE KIND OF SICK SHIT THAT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN, WHILE PEOPLE IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY COVER IT UP.

This is the kind of thing that makes me so ambivalent about the death penalty. Fuck you and your faith if you don't stand up for a child who is being abused because the abuser is a "spiritual" or "holy man".

It occurs to me that this is now, without doubt, a world wide problem. There have been revelations of priestly pedophilia in a dozen countries or more. Here in the U.S., we have people taking to the streets after being fed bogus conspiracy theories about terrorist babies, the Presidential Muslimhood, birth certificates and more. All this, without anything resembling what could reasonably be considered proof. It's all just insinuation and allegation. Someone from my camp says it, so it must be true. We also have actual, verifiable evidence that a near global conspiracy to hide and protect pedophiles (that results in them continuing to abuse children) has been under way for decades, and ain't nobody knocking down the door of Saint Patrick's Cathedral. If this were a particular sect of the Muslim faith, people would be burning mosques to the ground. Hell, if it were some sect of Judaism or even Mormonism, people would be losing their shit, and the radical hatred that would be unleashed would be frightening, and very, very real.

I'm not some lunatic who just hates Catholics either. I credit the fact that my great grandmother had a very firm Catholic faith for helping to shape me into the person I am today. I recognize and appreciate that few institutions or organizations have put so long a continued effort into addressing and dealing with poverty as people of the Catholic faith.

To me, this is less about the particular religion, than it is about unchecked power and group think dependency. In the U.S. we have a long, strong history of tradition fighting for limited government power, and even though I don't agree with the way that history is being misreported and manipulated, it's something that is necessary, and something I'm proud of (when that history is represented truthfully and factually). But, as time continues to march forward, we're becoming less and less interested in seeing the same kind limits to the power placed on religious institutions. I don't even necessarily mean placed there by law, because I do believe in our Constitution, and you're freedom to practice your religion without invasion of government power is analogous to my choice not to practice a religion, without government requiring me to do so. Now, though, the push from extremist individuals to marry government and religion is getting harder, louder and more angry.

The problem with the marriage of religion and government is that it leaves the people without the kind of protections and checks on power that each can provide. The government should be allowed to provide a system of justice and compensation for people who have been abused and exploited by religious institutions. Priests who break the law, should be going to jail. Pastors, ministers, whatever the name of the office, if you have broken the law, you should be going to jail.

At the same time, we find that religious movements have often provided the method of redress for a population of people who have been exploited or repressed for their government. The American Civil Rights movement was organized in churches and church basements, beginning with members of those parishes, and spreading to a wider community. Religion was very much a center of India's fight for independence from the United Kingdom's colonial exploitation.

The marriage of the two, removes at least one protection that the populace have from the exploitation and repression of people in power. It creates a center of power rivaled only by the kind of despotic dictatorships average Americans have an instinctual distrust and hatred of. That is never, ever good.

Right now, we're in a heated debate about the nature of religious freedom. We're infringing on the rights of Muslims in many different ways because extremist voices among the leaders in our political and religious discourse have stirred up hatred and fear. What we are reacting to is, very specifically, the actions of some very few nihilistic, hate filled extremists. The toll the took was terrible. The deaths of 3,000 Americans (including American Muslims) was a terrible day in our history. But, it was one attack, carried out by one small, fringe group that took advantage of our arrogance. What we see in the continued discovery of further conspiracy to hide and protect pedophiles is something very, very different. This is no longer something that can just be considered "a few bad apples". A few bad apples may have committed the actual crimes, but the cover ups, continuing for decades, resulting in those same disgusting wretches being able to abuse more children, demonstrates more of a threat to the actual health of American children and their families than anything that has been done by any Muslim, especially the seven million American Muslims who have been living with us peacefully as our brothers and sisters for decades.

Where is your outrage now?

I think this has something to do with the fact that being Catholic falls under the larger banner of "Christian". Pat Robertson might have a few less than favorable things to say about a scandal like this, but there's no way he's going to wage an all out war on Catholicism, because many of those donations to the 700 Club are coming from Catholics who appreciate his "leadership" on issues like abortion and gay rights. The same goes for the rest of the mainstream Christian movement.

And speaking of gay rights.......... It's been the Catholic church who has been among the leaders of the movement to prevent gays from achieving full citizenship and full rights here in America and abroad. One of their favorite tropes has been to run around either outright claiming or insinuating, "teh gays want to touch your kids pee pee". It's been scientifically proven that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. In fact, at this point, I'd be willing to bet a statistical analysis would suggest a priest is more likely to be a pedophile than a homosexual is. I wonder if there's anyone out there running those numbers. Probably not, because like people not riding dinosaurs, climate change being very real, poverty being the result of exploitation by the powerful of the powerless, and that no man is the infallible representative of an unseen deity (Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise), people don't want to actually know whether or not that is true.

Blockbusted

2010-09-01T10:02:00.000-07:00

In my regular travels across the vast internet wilderness, I came across a story on /Film that's worth noting. It's not that there's anything particularly enlightening about it or that it's even very surprising somehow. Blockbuster video is closing up shop and filing for bankruptcy in September.

This might seem like a story which would be more at home in my movie blog, but there's a little more to it than just "giant movie rental chain goes belly up". It would probably seem to make more sense for someone like me, a rabid movie fan, to be saddened by the death knell of an outlet through which people might be able to see more movies. David Chen, one of the regular contributors to /Film, certainly seems to be. I'm not. At all.

When I was growing up, and the obsession with film was just starting to take root, we had two video stores in town. One was in the local supermarket shopping center, and it was the first video store my family had a membership with. I was a bike riding fool as a kid, so I was constantly peddling from one end of town to the other. Whether it was to go fishing, swimming, play ball somewhere, trying to find the place which would allow my bike and I the most air and the greatest speed, I wasn't confined to a very small area. On the other side of town from where my mother and stepfather bought our first house, there was another video store, and having the first twinges of obsession with film, I would occasionally stop in there, curious to see if a video store was a video store was a video store. In more ways than not, I was a typical middle class kid at that age, and in that time.

It was called Ultimate video, and it sat on the corner of Main St. and Railroad Avenue, a stone's throw from the local little league field. Ultimate Video was proof that not all video stores were created equal. It was a relatively tiny little place, but compared to the store at the other end of town, it was a veritable treasure trove. The shelves were packed full of video's whose covers ranged from bizarre to exotic to almost mind numbingly boring. It didn't take but a few visits for me to realize Ultimate Video was indeed ultimate, and far superior to the video store my parents had decided to sign up with. It became a source of constant irritation. When we had the good fortune to be able to go and rent some videos, I knew I was missing something. The Other Video store (which is invariably how adults referred to it) was further away (by a whole mile and a half), and to them, one video store was the same as the next.

For those first few years, I made due. I found what I could in that initial place, and at least got a movie fix once in a while. But, when my parents moved us to the other side of town (the side Ultimate Video was on), it finally happened. We got a membership at Ultimate Video and the pain of having to browse the less worthy shelves of that crappy store was finally ended. That first store, the name of which I can't even remember anymore, went belly up not long after. People were figuring out that Ultimate Video had the real goods. From that point forward, I spent many hours perusing the shelves of that tiny little video haven. Going to rent a movie became an event that took me a few hours. When I say tiny, I mean it too. It was probably twenty-five by thirty-five, but there were so many shelves packed in there, it was like a little maze. I'd walk through those aisles, whose top shelf I had a hard time reaching at first, and scrutinize the cover of every single video. Does anyone else remember being completely awestruck by the glowing eyes on the cover of Dead Pit? It was a terrible movie, but that cover was a genius marketing move. If something seemed like it might be a candidate for the day or evenings viewing experience, I'd pick it up, read the plot summary on the back, study the frames from the film, and set it back, making a mental note. I spent so much time in that place as a kid, I'd occasionally just grab a stack of video's waiting to go back on the shelves and put them out. I knew where they all went, and I was in there so often, the proprietor trusted me enough to know I wasn't heading for the door with a stack full of her videos.

She got to know my mom pretty well too, because I'd come in pick a video and if it was R rated, she'd have to make the call. At first, I'd be standing there phone number in hand, but it wasn't long at all before it was just written down on our membership card, and not long after that, the owner memorized it. She'd call, tell my mom what it was I was trying to rent, give her a basic idea of what it was about and why it was rated R (this was about the time PG-13 was making it's debut, so for a while, I had to go through the same process with those), and my mom would give her the yay or nay vote. Luckily for me, before video was at my disposal, I'd developed a pretty voracious reading habit. Being an only child, and a latch key kid, meant lots of time to yourself, and even my dog would get tired at some point, so I needed something to keep me busy. I had made the jump from strictly kids fare to Stephen King, Shakespeare, H.G. Wells, Mark Twain and so on pretty young, so my parents weren't too restrictive in what movies they'd let me see. Occasionally, something was just a little too much, but I knew the line, and I wasn't interested in putting anyone through the hassle of having to call my mom about a video I knew I wasn't going to be allowed to see (I Spit On Your Grave and Faces Of Death taunted me from those shelves). That reading habit had already started me on an interest in all things horror. I waited impatiently for the newest Stephen King novel to make it to paperback in those days. Paperbacks were cheaper, and they either fit in my pocket or in my waist band in the small of my back. It didn't take me long to figure out that I had to read the first few chapters before I could start carrying that way. Little boy sweat tended to smear the print pretty horrifically at some point, and the covers and first few pages would end up disintegrating. Poe and Lovecraft would satiate my hunger for horror while waiting for Stephen King's next page turner. If those paperbacks were my introduction, my elementary and high school of horror, science fiction and all other forms of narrative geekery, Ultimate Video was my undergrad. It was the kind of business that recognized itself as part of a middle class community, and the owners did their best to live up to that responsibility.

They certainly did a service for me. I was just a regular middle class kid, and without the likes of places like Ultimate Video (and The Record Stop, the areas independent record store), there are so many things I either never would have been exposed to at all or it would have been so much later, that they may not have made as much of an impact on me. Prior to these kinds of businesses existing, you couldn't see a lot of these films in the suburbs, you had to live in a major metropolitan area, and catch them in the theaters. The same was true for music. If you didn't live in a major city, there were many things you just didn't get exposed to and which remained too obscure for far too long. These kinds of businesses opened up a whole new worlds for middle class kids, adolescents and adults who were looking for something a little different from what the local multiplex was playing of the local radio station was promoting.

I wasn't necessarily interested in what the newest videos were. There were plenty of weeks during which whatever was newly released just wasn't interesting to me. Sure, I could sit through and relatively enjoy some big, loud, dumb action movie, just like any other boy, but I had already figured out it's better to see something a little older and well done than something new that just wasn't any good. In my mid-teens, the point finally came at which I'd seen basically every catalog title they had in stock that I had even a remote interest in, but by that point, the video boom was in full swing and there were video places everywhere, and of the record stores which carried lesser known music started selling video titles that were a little outside the mainstream. At that point, Ultimate Video would order stuff for me if I asked for it, and on one or two occasions, they didn't even make me buy it, they just put it in with their rental catalog.

Unfortunately, the video boom also brought the huge rental chains, Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video and the like. The first time I walked into a Blockbuster, I was initially wowed. It was so big and the aisles were wide enough to walk past someone else without having to press yourself against the shelves, and it seemed like there was just an endless supply of movies. And in the first year or so they were coming to prominence, they had a decent selection. It still wasn't quite as good as Ultimate Video, especially if you were a horror fan, but it wasn't too bad, and if I couldn't find a horror flick I wanted to see, I could find something in another section. But then, over time, the selection started to get worse and worse. There was less and less room in the store devoted to catalog titles, and more and more devoted to new titles. There would be ninety copies of the Meg Ryan romantic comedy they'd given a new name and cover, but when a fellow horror aficionado was finally convinced he could not go another day without seeing Cannibal Holocaust, it was nowhere to be found. It wasn't that it was already rented and just not in stock. They didn't even carry it. When I asked about it, I was told there were some titles they didn't carry because of their content. And that kind of thing started to happen more and more often. It wasn't necessarily always content that kept things off of Blockbusters shelves either. It was the kind of corporate decision making that decided a title wasn't going to have enough demand to be worth carrying. I get that, every business has that right, but I can't for the life of me figure out how those decisions were actually made. There were plenty of things on that "New Release" wall that even I had never heard of, and I spent more time than anyone I knew reading magazines (because there was no internet at the time), newspapers and the occasional film zine from some small press in New York City), just to know what was going to be coming out. It wasn't lost on me that most of those movies had titles like "Silk Desires", and were purported to be "thrillers" about two people caught in a web of intrigue, often involving an affair, a missing person, an insurance scam or some such nonsense. They were the softest core porn really. They were porn without the porn. Lots of fuzzy angles, the occasional moan, and silhouetted nakedness. It was like porn for the kind of hardcore "Moral Majority" type who decided tonight was going to be sin central, but you know, without the actual sinning.

There lots of those, and things like "Hood Riders", because Menace II Society and Boys In The Hood had just gained popularity and acclaim, and retailers of all varieties were starting to try and seem like they were "urban friendly", but getting a copy of School Daze, before Do The Right Thing hit, was impossible. All of that stuff was in abundance, but when I read about a film called Salo by Palo Pasolini, a disturbingly violent and sexually graphic, but intellectually unparalleled cinematic meditation on the realities of fascism and totalitarianism, it was nowhere to be found, and by that point, the Blockbuster's of the world had put the Ultimate Video's of the world out of business. The American middle class had turned Blockbuster into the nine hundred pound gorilla of the video rental industry. When I asked the guy behind the counter, whom I knew to be the manager, if he could possibly order a copy for me, it seemed as if I had asked him to build me a space shuttle behind the store and use some kind of alchemy to turn popcorn butter into rocket fuel. When I finally decided there might be more to The Seventh Seal than a bunch of pretentious film student posturing, I couldn't find a copy of that either, and it's widely considered one of the two or three greatest films of all time. It's not that obscure a title, at all. It's something you can see referenced in the pages of any newspapers film reviews, as long as it's a paper written on more than a seventh grade reading level (unlike the Richmond Times Dispatch). And three quarters of the people working in the stores had never even heard of these things.

And that trend continued. Fewer catalog titles, more new releases, and straight to video "niche market" titles became the regular business model for rental chains.

Blockbuster was not a business which saw itself as part of a middle class community. Without a middle class, they would never have reached the level of success they did, but being a part of and enriching that community was not something Blockbuster was interested in. They were interested, first, foremost and only in squeezing every dollar they could out of that middle class. It's something we've seen plenty of in our lifetimes. Companies are built on a customer base that is middle class, but it's only interest is in taking what it can get, and they claim their only responsibility is to their profit margin and their shareholders. To the community that makes them successful, they are only responsible for providing a product that consumer community will buy or can be convinced to buy. It doesn't have to be a quality product, it just has to be something they can sell and we will buy.

Then, the digital revolution truly began.

I was actually working in a record store when Napster made the front page of almost every newspaper in the country (except, of course, The Richmond Times Dispatch). Music was being shared across the internet, for free, by hundreds of thousands of college students everywhere. This wasn't news to me, I'd already had more than one person scoff at the twenty dollar per CD price tag and mumble about downloading it from Napster. Personally, I wasn't doing the whole download thing. I not like the way the music industry conducted a lot of it's business, but at least the people creating the content should be getting paid enough to keep creating content. Napster and it's users were basically screwing the people whose music they were fans of, which didn't make much sense to me. The music industry was very quickly in complete chaos. Those of us working in the stores were hoping they'd at least be smart enough to get on top of things and start offering music for sale, online. Then came the Metallica suit, in which the band sued the users sharing their music. We all saw the writing on the wall. Suing the fans is the most idiotic possible way to stop digital piracy. You're punishing your fans, for what amounts to cents on the dollar for you. The fans knew enough to know the overwhelming majority of profit for music sales went to the record companies and the artists make the money on merchandise and tours. Well, there were some attempts, most of which were pretty laughable because either the digital security measures were so draconian users couldn't actually play the music on all of their different machines or the pricing was ridiculous. I was somehow not shocked that people weren't going to pay fifteen or twenty bucks for music that didn't come with a package of any kind. There was no hard disc copy, no liner notes, no cover art, none of it. It was just the music, which is worth having and why you buy music in the first place, but without the rest of it, and with the modern consumer being savvy enough to know how much of the cost is in the production of a physical product etc., people knew they were getting screwed. The music industry had spent too much time fighting the future, and trying to keep it from coming, and in many ways had gotten left behind, and still hasn't caught up. Now, Apple almost entirely controls the market, because the record companies spent their resources trying to keep the digital revolution from happening, instead of trying to figure out how to capitalize on it.

The exact same thing has happened to the movie industry, and especially the rental industry. Because they've gotten locked into a business model which has been extremely profitable, but which hasn't served the consumer very well, and they have been more willing to try and fight the inevitable than expend the energy to develop some new ideas, they've gotten caught with their pants down. The major film studios are in the process of bringing exactly the same kind of suit, against end users (fans) that Metallica did. They've run into a bit of a rough patch with that suit though, because none of the internet service providers have enough people on staff who can bring them the names which match the IP addresses they've nailed down. Three to five people on staff, finding IP addresses for a company like Verizon, who typically have to track down twenty to one hundred a month for criminal investigations, are suddenly saddled with a list of thousands, and they just aren't able to do it. It's not looking good for the studios on that front either.

And for the likes of Blockbuster, this has been a long time coming. They too fought the digital revolution for longer than was wise, and by the time they started doing their own rental through the mail and download content, it was way too late, Redbox had already eclipsed the new release market for the casual movie fan, and for the serious film obsessive like me, Netflix streaming capabilities and the mail to home rentals is like having forty Ultimate Video's in my living room.

I have a deep sympathy for the employees of Blockbuster who are going to lose their jobs. But the thing is, this is something that's happening in many different American industries. The inability to even consider attempting to change the model of a business because they are so anchored to the idea that this is the only way they can profit, is not good for anyone, at all. This is really no different than what happened with the American auto industry, except Blockbuster isn't a big enough part of the economic picture and American identity to get rescued. Things are changing, quickly now, and for those businesses who are incapable of trying to develop REAL INNOVATION it's going to be the end of the road. Right now, there's a significant push back against the green movement and the idea of climate change, but that's not going to hold up forever. At some point, hopefully sooner than later, people are going to realize it is an actual reality, and the only fantasy and conspiracy perpetrated upon them has been by those who keep denying it. There are businesses out there who are capitalizing on the future that's coming and putting themselves in the kind of position to be the industry leaders of the future. The question is whether or not there will be qualified Americans for them to hire.

The same thing is happening to the middle class in many ways. It's been the middle class who have made so many of these companies and industries incredibly profitable. People are clamoring to bring the jobs back that have been sent overseas. Well, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you folks, but it's not going to happen. Those jobs are never coming back, and we're going to have to figure out a new way of structuring our economy, which means developing a new way of creating and sustaining middle class existences. As globalization was becoming a reality, the question of how the American labor force was going to compete against labor forces which can successfully live on two to five dollars a day was put to many of the people who were singing the praises of globalization. The answer was always education. The American Educational system is a complete mess, and the answer they have for you? It's not stop stripping funding from public schools that gave us a middle class which made us the most powerful economic, military and political force in the world. It's start privatizing it. That's been the same answer we've heard to just about every problem we've faced, even when those problems have their basis in the private market failing to provide what people need. And what happens when those private educational industry face the same kind of unstoppable future that the auto industry, music industry and film industry have faced and they refuse to change because their past models have been so profitable? What do Americans do then?

In 2006, America was graduating fifty-thousand engineers each year. Fifteen years prior, we'd been graduating sixty thousand engineers every year. In 2006, China was graduating over three hundred thousand engineers. Fifteen years prior, fifteen thousand. And what are we talking about right now? A community center in Manhattan. This is no different than Blockbuster trying to close it's eyes and act like Netflix and Redbox don't exist. We are not making the changes to the way we do things that are going to prepare us for the future that is coming. We are not realizing and taking into account that what it took to be, become and stay middle class is changing at an exponential rate. Middle class wages have been frozen, to the point of falling behind inflation, for thirty years. We can't afford to ignore these problems if we're going to continue to be and have a middle class. If we do, we're going to have ended up exactly like Blockbuster video, for exactly the same reason.

Blockbuster video was once the largest most powerful rental chain in the country and the world. The American auto industry was once the largest and most powerful auto industry in the world. The Unidted States once had the largest and wealthiest middle class in the world. One was recently rescued from utter destruction by the federal government (a government take over that saved their asses from being owned by China). Blockbuster won't exist in another few months. And the middle class is facing a dilemma. The model which created the middle class is no longer working. We are watching the world change around us, and we can become the leading edge of that change or we can get left behind. Are we going to keep on the path we've been on these last few decades or are we going to be the one's leading the world into the scientific and technological age? Are we going to be providing the kinds of services which make those advances as efficient as possible or are we going to be watching India, China, Korea, Japan and others beat us to it? Blockbuster and the auto industry refused to accept the realities of the changing world. America was once an economic and political powerhouse the likes of which the world has probably never seen, specifically because it had a thriving working and middle class. If those middle and working class people don't start waking up to the realities that just wanting things to go back to the way they were and not trying to start developing some new approaches to the changes of a changing world, we may very well end up in much the same place as the auto industry and Blockbuster video.

Morning in Seattle

2010-08-01T10:05:00.000-07:00

After a long day of flying, and arriving at the hotel at two am Seattle time, which was five am Richmond time, I fell off to a good sound, deep sleep. Waking up to a cloud and fog covered Seattle, I trundled downstairs to the Starbucks next to and attached to the hotel. It was about sixty-five degrees, a temperature we from Richmond haven't seen in three months or more. The heat wave currently squeezing the life out of the East Coast has been grinding on, unabated, for more months than is normal, even for a climate which can be as unforgiving as Central Virginia's summer.

Sitting in the Starbucks on Queen Anne Rd., I had a cup of coffee and went through my normal set of websites, news and so on. Seattle is definitely a more dog friendly town than Richmond is. There were a number of people who were walking with dogs, tied their leashes to a pole out front and came in to get their coffee. No one walking by outside looked twice at the dogs, and they weren't all tiny little dogs. Most of them were in the medium size range and one or two were pretty large. It was nice to see how few people were afraid of the dogs, and how many people felt comfortable enough leaving their dogs out front of the place without worrying about someone trying to run off with them or provoking them somehow.

The folks here seem pretty friendly as well. Everyone we've come in contact with in the stores, eateries and hotel have been friendly, polite and seem personable. We have yet to come across anyone who has the kind of surly attitude some of the folks back home have, though we haven't been into a 7-11 or McDonald's, where the worst offenders seem to be in Richmond.

Once DJ woke up and was showered and ready to go, we made our way over to The Space Needle, to pick up the ticket book for the City Pass we got. The City Pass is a pretty good deal. You get entrance to a number of the cities attractions and paying for the pass up front saves you some money in comparison with having to pay for each attraction separately. I had no idea there's an old school amusement park for children right at the bottom of the Space Needle, but it's there. It's pretty cool to see that stuff. There's an arcade, an old fashioned merry-go-round, bumper cars, some of those miniature roller coasters and what not. Maybe it's because that little place is one of the first things I saw, but the city seems to be an interesting mix of vintage and new. The architecture all seems to come from the sixties, the seventies or the last five years, and unlike so many other cities which seem to almost be at war with themselves over whether or not the city is going to try and hold onto it's heritage or it's going to become a modern urban paradise, Seattle seems to exist as a place at home with it's history and enjoying it's present. That is an extremely rare quality on the East Coast.

We inquired about Sky City, the restaurant at the top of the needle (we're planning to actually go to the top of the needle on Monday, when we can avoid some of the weekend crowd) and they said reservations were a good idea, so we'll call tomorrow about that. From there we headed to the Pike Place Market, probably Seattle's most well known attraction, especially if you're a fat boy in training, as I am. We were going to do the Pike Place walking tour that comes as part of the City Pass, but apparently you need reservations for that as well, which the website didn't bother to inform us. But there was a gentleman at the information center who was extremely helpful, going so far as to call the tour folks, make a reservation for us, and print out a copy of the confirmation of reservation. A definite plus, and another friendly and capable person. This isn't to say there aren't friendly and capable people back home in Richmond, but I certainly run across people who just seem too pissed off to bother on more occasions in a day than I have here in Seattle.

With the tour being put off until tomorrow, we decided to wander the Market a little anyway. And it's a good thing we did. One of the first places we stopped was a little place selling fresh fruit. Dinosaur Eggs caught DJ's eye. Neither of us had ever heard of a fruit called a Dinosaur Egg, and the friendly girl working there proceeded to tell us they are a cross between a plum and an apricot, cut a piece of one off and handed it over for us to try. Let me tell you, if you've never had one, you like fruit and you can get your hands on one, try them as soon as possible. We immediately got a Dinosaur Egg for each of us, and I grabbed a few fresh dates, something I love and rarely get a chance to indulge.

As we were wandering through the Pike Place Market, there were some street musicians playing their tunes, and crowds of people enthusiastically pushing their way down the street, buying up fresh food of more varieties than some smaller cities even contain. It reminded me very much of Bourbon Street in New Orleans, but without the kind of dangerous, anything can happen feeling you get in a place which worships the Bacchanalian wonders of alcohol, sex, drugs and the wondrous heights and depths of great music. Pike Place has the same enthusiastic feeling, but a much more straightforward love is beyond that feeling. It's the love of food. Good. Fresh. Food. Seafood, fruit, vegetables, meats, all of it. This is the kind of place where foodies journey to worship in the same way the self destructive journey to the mecca's of New Orleans and Vegas (at least New Orleans has it's own actual, organic culture, grown from a varied and interesting history, which helped produce it's incredible blues and jazz history).

We ended up deciding to have lunch at Pike Place Chowder. It's settled in Post Alley, off of the Market's main drag. Chowders and soups are their specialty, as if the name alone didn't give that away. We got a 4 cup chowder sampler, consisting of the Smoked Salmon Chowder, the Southwestern Chicken and Corn Chowder, the Manhattan Clam Chowder and the Seafood Bisque. We also got there second combo set, consisting of a cup of the chowder of your choice, a half of their Dungeness Crab Roll sandwich and a drink. Here's the thing. When I had my first taste of their New England Clam Chowder, the only thing I could think was "this is the chowder I've been waiting my whole life for." I've never had chowder this good before, and I'm a fan, so I try it if I see it on the menu in an eatery with a half way decent reputation. This was something else. The clams were perfectly done, not at all rubbery and overdone. Everything else was fresh when it went into the chowder, and you can taste it. It's been made with real heavy cream and overall, this is the best New England Clam Chowder I've ever had. I can see how they've won so many contests.

That isn't to say the rest of the chowders aren't absolutely killer, because they are. I can also say the Seafood Bisque is probably the best I've ever had. Just enough tomato, mixed with just enough cream, pepper and seafood to make it as damn near perfect as human beings can create. The Southwest Corn and Chicken is spiced just enough to set it apart from the rest, but again, you just can't underestimate the effect of fresh ingredients. It's probably not going to be for everyone, and Southwest Chicken and Corn Chowder is something I like, but it's not quite as high up there as Seafood Bisque and New England Clam Chowder, so this may just be a matter of personal preference. Don't underestimate the quality of the Manhattan Clam Chowder or The Smoked Salmon Chowder either. Both were excellent, though personally, I do like a little bit more vegetable in my Manhattan, and if I'm going to get the taste of smoked salmon, I want smoked salmon. Again, my only complaints really come back to personal preference. I can't say anything negative about the quality. The tomato base for the Manhattan pops in a way that is beautiful, and the Smoked Salmon Chowder is something I'd never had before and presented an extremely interesting flavor for a type of food I'm so used to having a completely different flavor. All in all, if you miss out on Pike Place Chowder, you should be kicking yourself.

The Dungeness Crab Roll was delicious, but I do have the feeling there are just any number of better ways to use the crab. Not to mention that when you do something as well as they do chowder, I can't really understand why you would do anything that would take the attention away from it. If they only sold the seven chowders they have available, they'd still be as successful and as well known as they are. The rest of the menu is probably very good, but I can't imagine an entire menu reaching that same level of delight.

We shuffled on over to the original Starbucks from there. At one in the afternoon on a Saturday, Pike Place was jam packed. There was nothing all that interesting about being in the first Starbucks store. But, I can say I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly we got in, ordered and got served, even though it was standing room only. The staff was friendly and fun, as a Starbucks really should be. It's good to see that even though the company has become a worldwide empire, they haven't forgotten the importance of the one little store they started from.

We made our way through the rest of the Market, checking out the variety of wares for sale. There was some great hand made stuff for sale, but neither of us really tend to buy much "stuff". It was all very cool, and I'm sure people with a little more of a yen for shopping would love it. I was impressed with and tempted by the number of handmade jams, desserts, pasta, and other food. If we had enough room in our bags to take more stuff home with us, I'd probably have bought some of that stuff to take home and experiment with.

We were both pretty exhausted by that point and headed back to the hotel for some rest. So far, we'd been walking everywhere, which is great on the one hand, because everything else is so close to the hotel. It also saves some money on cabs and mass transit. Seattle does seem to have a pretty good mass transit system, but if you can get away without having to figure that kind of stuff out on a relatively short vacation, it's helpful. Personally, I do like to go through the process of figuring through and learning mass transit systems and a city's layout, but for most people, that's probably not what a good vacation is made of.

Settling in for a rest at the hotel, we found we were just in time to catch a showing of Bad Day At Black Rock, starring Spencer Tracy, Robert Ryan, Walter Brennan, and Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine when they were young men. It's a good flick about a small Western town in hiding a secret in post WWII days. Check it out if you get the chance.

When we finally felt rested enough and started getting hungry we started trying to decide where to grab some evening grub. We've picked up a few different tourism pamphlets, which not surprisingly, highlight the more upper crust restaurants. Luckily for me, DJ has no more affinity for getting dressed to the nine's for a meal. It's just too much work, especially on vacation. I also haven't been able to wrap my head around the idea that my attire would have anything to do with the quality of the food. Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to pay the money for a good meal, especially if it's above and beyond good, and getting into "great" territory. I'll pay for fresh ingredients, a chef with experience and imagination and a good staff. I'm not paying for a tie. If I'm wearing the tie, I paid for it once already, I'm not paying for it again so you can convince some sucker his tie somehow makes the meal better. Besides which, the best meals I've ever had in restaurants have never required more than a pair of khaki pants and a clean shirt.

With that in mind we started going through the lists in the literature we'd picked up and comparing the one's which looked good on paper with what we could find online. We decided The Queen City Grill was the place to go, because it wasn't outrageously price, had a casual atmosphere and was within walking distance of the hotel.

I have to give DJ credit on booking the hotel. She managed to get a hotel which put us in walking distance to most of the major attractions, and Bell Town. Apparently Bell Town is center of the city's restaurant and nightlife culture. The Mediterranean Inn is a great choice for anyone who's not looking for too much in the way of luxury, but appreciates clean rooms, a friendly staff and close proximity to most of what Seattle has to offer the non-residential. If I make my way back here at some point, I will be booking a room there again.

We found The Queen City Grille with no problem (thanks to Google Maps). It's a nice little place, with simple, but well tasteful decor, there are booths with high seat backs lining the left side of the restaurant (providing privacy quite well), tables immediately on the right hand side, behind which the bar fills the rest of the place. The wait staff was friendly and attentive without been cloying, a combination I appreciate most deeply. And, since neither DJ or myself drink, it's easy to see how we might fall to the bottom of the list on a servers priorities. Our bill is always going to be lower for it, and therefore, most of them believe it's going to be a lower tip. The trick there is, both of us have worked in the food service industry, and it's not at all hard to get thirty percent out of us. Be competent and friendly and you're getting thirty percent. Go above and beyond and we'll go to forty or fifty.

I ordered three oysters on the half shell, which were fresh and tasty. Good seafood on the half shell isn't something I get very often in Richmond, and with the quality of seafood here, I couldn't pass it up. They were a good starter. For an entree, I had the Linguini with clams. It's a dish which pretty pedestrian, I know, but it's a favorite and a staple because it's good, and though you can go above and beyond to make it excellent and extra delicious, it's hard to make it terrible. I ordered a serving of the Chocolate Nemesis for dessert.

I was expecting a pretty good meal, and I definitely got more than that. I can describe the entire meal with one phrase, perfectly balanced. The clams over the linguini were cooked to perfection (something many restaurants charging a good deal more have gotten very wrong before), not dried out and tasting like shoe laces dried after a run in a river bed. The sauce was a perfect blend of garlic, tomato a slight touch of vermouth and just enough pepper to give it a little pop. The linguini was fresh and possibly hand made, and and it's flavor was clearly discernible through the delicately balanced flavor of the sauce. Not your usual linguini with clam sauce, by any stretch of the imagination. Don't sell this one short because it's a staple of nearly every mid-range menu in America. These guys managed to take something that familiar and make it their own, just enough to make it memorable, delicious and slightly surprising.

Next we ordered dessert. I got the Chocolate Nemesis, and DJ the Key Lime pie. I'm a big fan of chocolate. I adhere fervently to the idea that there are few things in life chocolate can't make a little more bearable. But this was something else altogether. The Chocolate Nemesis is a chocolate pie, more or less, but with the consistency just shy of fudge thickness. The plate is garnished with a raspberry sauce and two small tufts of fresh whipped cream, not the canned junk, but the real thing (whipped cream actually should be garnish, not something smothering your dessert, which seems to be what most establishments think). When you put a piece of it in your mouth, with a little bit of the raspberry sauce and a touch of the whipped cream, it slowly dissolves toward a more bitter dark chocolate, and sauce and whipped cream add exactly the right amount of sweet and creamy to make it perfection. As far as I'm concerned bad chocolate is better than a mid-quality dessert. This is without doubt when of the best chocolate desserts I've ever had. Again, so perfectly balanced in flavor and texture to make each bite a wonder and a pleasure. I was amazed with each mouthful. If I didn't think it would be somewhat uncouth, I'd have asked to go into their kitchen, hug the full cakes and tell them they'd brought a dimension to my life I didn't know was missing.

DJ's Key lime pie succeeded for exactly the same reasons. Key Lime pie isn't something I very often enjoy, I've had too many which were cloyingly sweet, with the consistency of hair gel. This was light, perfectly sweetened with the wonderful tang of real lime. I'm not generally a fan, but even I could tell this was a high quality version of an old favorite.

All in all, The Queen City Grill might not be breaking new ground in food creativity, but when you do the old standards as perfectly as they do, you don't need to. Everything about the meal was perfectly balanced, all of the flavors and textures screaming that the management and kitchen staff are passionate about what they do, which above all else is the ingredient you just can't substitute. I'd recommend The Queen City Grill to anyone, has just enough of everything for almost anyone to be able to find a better meal than they're probably expecting.

So far, Seattle is surpassing my expectations, and quickly becoming a destination I'd recommend to anyone looking to get away, but avoid the kind of head aches and costs associated with the bigger cities like New York, Chicago and L.A.

Traveling American

2010-07-31T17:46:00.000-07:00

It's been a few years since I've had the opportunity to travel to a place which was pretty foreign to me, especially by some method other than car. It's been a good while since I traveled by plane or bus. This time it was by plane. Richmond to Seattle, by way of O'Hare in Chicago.

Traveling is somewhat different when you're an adult. I still get that vague feeling of being on some kind of adventure, but it's certainly a good deal less acute, probably aided somewhat by the fact that I can rely heavily on waking up where I remember falling asleep, not to mention remembering going to sleep and how I came to be where I fell asleep. These things have not always been the given they are today. But there is still very good people watching in places like airports and bus stations. This is something I've always loved about traveling.

In my rush to make sure I was ready on time and had everything together, had typed and printed the instructions for the friend taking care of our faithful, four legged companions, I didn't think to eat anything before we got to the airport in Richmond. These days, they recommend you get to the airport ninety minutes to two hours ahead of your departure time. The new regulations since 9/11 have slowed the process of going through security and boarding more complicated. But it was striking to see the degree to which people can be herded, calm as Hindu cows, through the entire process. They were calm and efficient and for the most part, well prepared. It took all of ten minutes, and I only saw one person who was attempting to board with some form of contraband. She wasn't trying to smuggle an AK-47 or an RPG onto the plane, nothing that exciting at all. She was trying to get a bottle of wine on the plane for her husband at home, in her carry on. That was her story anyway. By the looks of her, she was very familiar with the bottom of a wine bottle. Very familiar. But, she didn't protest, just pitched the bottle in the trash, and on she went. I've flown one other time since 9/11, and I'm still somewhat shocked by how well people actually navigate the whole thing, and how little chicanery and protesting goes on.

Once you've made it through the security gauntlet intact, and with your shoes, your kind of stuck in the concourse. They know this. And by they, I mean the airport personnel and the staff at the various little eateries and retailers, usually selling the kind of obnoxious bric-a-brac emblazoned with the name of the airports location, that you never actually see the people who live there wearing. I was actually thinking about picking up a couple of Richmond hats and sweatshirts, to wear myself. It would be just stupid enough to almost be funny. The VCU hat is going in the trash, I'm just going with the straight up, canvas, Richmond hat. Though I should probably buy a few because I have the sense they probably don't last all that long.

Don't get me wrong, you can get almost anything you would actually need for traveling. This is a good thing. If you've forgotten something, you're in a hurry and don't expect to have much time for extraneous activity at your destination, these places can be useful. But they know they've got you. A seven dollar stick of deodorant is a sure sign of this kind of thing. The other is the food, and the service. Mostly, the food is something akin to fast food, unless you're in the larger airports like O'hare or Sea-Tac, where you can get something that resembles real food, but it's under the banner of "Wolfgang Puck" or some other "upscale" chain, which really again means, you'd better grab your ankles.

This particular trip involved an attempt to get a burger at Cheeburger Cheeburger in Richmond International Airport. I've never been to a non-airport bound Cheeburger Cheeburger, so I hope no one takes this as an account of the kind of thing you normally find at one of their locations, because I sure don't. The airport is special, because as I said, they've got you. You're a captive audience, especially in a small burg like Richmond. Once you're on the concourse, through security, the choices are Cheeburger Cheeburger and The Sam Adams Grill. The Sam Adams Grill was full of suited business folks, a number of whom had either been traveling a good long while or sitting in The Sam Adams Grill, tying it on for quite a good while. It was pretty loud, and there were a few particularly obnoxiously loud folks right near the entrance. They were a conclave of business men and women, obviously engaged in that decade old ritual of "yeah, buddy, if you can get enough of those Vodka and Cranberry's in her, you might have a chance (even though we all know it's not going to happen, we also know you need to hold on to that hope, so we're all nice about it)". This is never good advertising. Unless, of course, said obnoxiously loud patron is a skimpily dressed young women enthusiastically braying the sorority/fraternity mating call, "OH MY GOD! I AM SO DRUNK RIGHT NOW!!" That's pretty good for any business which has specifically chosen the name of a micro-brewery as the centerpiece of it's own name. A name like that says, "we're a slightly more exclusive Bacchanalia, not just your run of the mill self destructive, nerveless decadence. We're a swill distributor, with ties and taste".

But, back to Cheeburger Cheeburger. With a captive audience, and no competition to really speak of, things like quality and service seem to be luxuries not even afforded to the business class traveler, though I guess the first class and business class traveler don't eat at Cheeburger Cheeburger. I have a feeling ti really wouldn't matter either way. The democracy of that degree of absolute apathy and near contempt is quite refreshing. Let's just say that if you're going through Richmond International Airport and you're in a hurry or really need to eat, Cheeburger Cheeburger isn't the spot to stop. They have some of that manufactured kitsch as the "decorating" in the place, one sign which read "same day service guaranteed". I think you might actually have to specify that before you order, and make sure they can handle it. Now, get me wrong, I hold no ill will for the folks working there. I deal with us, the general public, and have for year as part of my job. We're just not easy to deal with. We're bitchy, bossy, mean, and way too often for it to actually be true, we're special, very, very special, and this must be recognized. That's all very true, but some of us are also pretty friendly and polite. I do my best. I've been on the other side of a few too many of those counters to give these people shit. On the other hand, having been on the other side of many of those counters, I tend to have a decent idea of what it actually takes to get the job done with even the lowest level of competency. Cheeburger Cheeburger wasn't even reaching for it. Don't expect much in the way of actual nutrition. Unless transmission fluid, brake fluid and tire cleaner are the kinds of things you find nourishing.

We had a lay over in O'Hare for three hours and another flight, four hours long after two hour to Chicago, and we were both beat. We're staying at a little hotel called The Mediterranean Inn. It's a nice little place, which looks like it was an apartment building before. The room is clean, with all the normal things you'd expect in a hotel, though I haven't checked for a copy of Gideon's Bible yet.

The New Dominion

2009-08-24T21:04:00.000-07:00

The crowd cowers, packed into an alley as they hear the marching boots and ragged breathing of a mass of creatures without conscience advancing upon them. More terrifying is the man driving them forward, like a coach driver, wildly whipping his horses with the abandon and fervor only a true hatred could produce. They know he hates them, merely because they exist, free from the mind control apparatus that has taken hold of their neighbors and loved ones. He will bathe in their blood, and feed their children to his snarling, slobbering canine hordes. Their extinction is the sole purpose of his existence, as if his mind can not begin to wrestle any other topic until this thing has been done. And he is coming.

The half human creatures he has used his power to create have gotten the taste of blood on their lips. To guzzle the blood of this crowd in gallons is all they can possibly consider, singular, and brutal as starving animals. They are coming.

The boots of these creatures coming ever closer, the sound of orders being bellowed by the abomination which created them become audible. "Find them. They are yours. Chew their flesh from their bodies. Crush the skulls of their children under your boots and suck out their brains. These vermin must be destroyed if you are to survive."

Their lines round the corner of the alley, without attacking, their numbers push the crowd further back. Each person so tightly packed into the crowd, it becomes hard for any to get their breath. The stench of their pursuers, these genetically mutated creatures, stolen from the wombs of their own women, defiled and destroyed in order to be used to hunt down the would be parents they could once have had. Finally, he is there, behind them, astride his mechanical menace, the electric beast he chooses to ride.

The leering smile they have learned to fear cuts across his face and he laughs loudly. They are the last of his prey, victory stands in front of him, within his grasp, and he is sucking it up, as he will their blood.

One man, stands hard in front of these freakish creatures, the last of the true believers in the cause. "Foul thing, you have won your last battle. You can spill none of our blood. We have been chosen, and nothing you do can change that. Steal our children, destroy our communities, take our lives and our livelihood, nothing will change the fact you will never win. This is, and will be again our world."

Steely eyed and still, their enemy stares at the man who dares to oppose him, and to utter the true prophecy aloud. "You are mistaken, and your superstitions are your undoing you fool. You have been clinging to your religion to save you, and here you are. Standing in an alley, making grand proclamations, as if we both didn't know this is the end. It's not your happpy ending, no savior is coming for you. You are an ignorant fool. You could never have stood against my power and cunning. I am Barrack Obama, and I have come to finish you."

And with that, there is a sound, something like that of thunder, growing louder quickly. It booms through the streets, shaking the the windows of the buildings, car alarms beginning to sound. All eyes look to the sky, and the gasps of the crowd are followed by the shrieking sound of the creatures before them. They scatter, leaving their trail of black sludge on the streets.

Descending from the sky, huge wings that barely fit between the buildings of the street beat the air, creating that fearsome sound, and gleaming armor shines light down on them all. It is him, whom they prayed for, descending like a wraith upon their enemy. As he plummets toward the earth the great Leader who conquered all but a small percentage of the world, The Obama, cringes and whimpers, falling to the ground in terror. As bare feet slap the pavement, wings spread wide, his armor chest plate shining like the sun, the arch angel Michael unsheathes his flaming sword, and with a clean swipe, takes the head of the evil, hateful things before him.

He turns to the crowd, who stand speechless and gawking. Looking at the faces in the crowd, flaming sword in hand, eyes seeming to burn from within he exclaims, "Who the hills an angel gotta beheadl to get a Pabst round hurr?"

A roar of cheers, laughter and crying erupt from the crowd.

Yes, we're in fantasy land here. We've entered the land of the unhinged fringe. I have described the epic ending of the tale they are trying to tell. The liberal Anti-Christ, illegal alien, black nationalist and Muslim hate monger is going to establish dictatorship to come and destroy the good God fearing, conservative Real Americans, so that he can use stem cell research to breed a species of creatures more amenable to his will. Of course in order succeed, he has to use the media to brain wash those poor, unwashed, heathen masses so they will believe everything he says and proposes, with no thought of their own. He will have the power of a zombie army at his fingertips, and a genetically mutated set of animal enhanced super soldiers to hunt down the really annoying folks. Kenyan witches who found him while he was living in Indonesia and replaced his soul with that of the Anti-Christ will be swallowing the souls of their children, probably via repeated forced viewings of Harry Potter films.

This might seem like the kind of thing which would only be coming from the furthest reaches of the lunatic fringe, but it's not. We have elected officials, who at this point, are convinced they are engaged in a political holy war. Michelle Bachman anyone? If you're not familiar with Bonkers Bachmann, she's gotten famous for such wonderful suggestions as investigating members of Congress for "Anti-American attitudes", suggesting her constituents and all right minded Republicans not fill out the 2010 census because it's a Liberal plot to start the process of funneling people into internment camps, saying that attempting to expand national service by offering tuition money to students in return for their service is a plan for re-education camps, Obama is trying abandon the dollar, complaining that we're "running out of rich people", suggesting "all cultures are not equal", and most recently that she and others will have to "slit our wrists, become blood brothers to make sure this never passes". This, being health care reform. Bachmann is also on the record as claiming she will be waiting for God to tell her if he wants her to run for President.

OK, I'll give it to you, Bachmann's an easy target. She's both completely out of her mind, and completely unable to reign in the crazy which makes it out of her mouth. Bachmann is someone who represents what used to be a far right fringe of American politics, seeing government camps, communists, and alien enhanced brain washing technology around every corner. This is the militia wing of the political right. The folks out there collecting arms in preparation for the day the government comes for them. Despite the fact that the U.S. government has, in over four hundred years, never come for them, they're still sure it's going to happen, very soon. The intrepid, and apparently lacking a few light bulbs in the vanity of his intellect (he can't spell oligarchy or quote Roosevelt's most famous "speak softly and carry a big stick" correctly"), Glenn Beck has also long been a fan of the "FEMA CAMPS ARE COMING" thread of discussion.

This is the kind of thing which used to be found in the darkest corners of the intrawebz, where conspiracy theorists could find each other and share trade secrets. Now, it's being posited by people who are members of Congress and people who have an audience of millions. This isn't dark corner subject matter anymore. It's out in the daylight and people are taking it seriously. It's not just these people taking it seriously either. The base of the conservative right is taking it very seriously. Somehow, I'm not able to make the logical jump myself, but somehow it was OK for Bush to expand the governments surveillance beyond anything we have ever seen, but something like health care reform and the census is inevitably going to result in internment camps.

All of it has been streaming from the sewer of the American consciousness as the Republican party reels from the blows of a string of sex scandals. Senator John Ensign was involved in an extra marital affair which involved his hiring his mistress son as a member of his staff, and paid hush money to the woman's husband, who also happened to have worked for Ensign during his campaign. Of course, there's the "gone hiking, be back in a week" case of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford who got caught using public funds to take trips to Argentina to see his mistress. Former Representative Chip Pickering's wife just went public with the claim that he was having an affair while in Washington too. Let's put aside the fact that these are three fire and brimstone family values conservatives, and the blatant hypocrisy in that alone. There's a little more going on here.

All three of these guys are related to the C Street house. By itself, the fact that three elected Republicans caught in extra-marital affairs are spending time together in one particular place might not really seem that strange. I mean, they do have plenty in common, don't they? It also wouldn't be all that strange to find a group of conservative Republicans bunking together in the same house might not seem so strange either. Even Bible studies among them wouldn't be so strange. But, these three cases have brought attention to that house, not only because of it's connection to the affairs, but also because it's owned by a secretive religious group which calls itself alternately The Family or The Fellowship. This is where it starts getting ultra weird and creepy.

If you're not familiar with The Family, it's because they want it that way. It's a group dedicated to secrecy. Considering what they're about, I'd be trying to keep it secret as well if I were them. The basic philosophy here is, "if you have attained a position of power, it's because God has chosen you to have that power, which means that since God chose you, you can do whatever you want". That's not a joke, and it's not hyperbole. Their goal is actually pretty simple. A singular world government, lead by men whom they have led to a personal relationship with Jesus. Again, I'm not actually kidding. This sounds crazy, I know. They intend to do this by using their "friends".

It gets a little crazier as well. Who is it these men see as having had a vision of how exactly to use the kind of power The Family seeks to grab? Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and a few other really great dictators in history, Ghengis Khan included.

In itself, I understand this sounds like it's own conspiracy theory. I know this. On the other hand, if you really start looking at the little reporting which has been done on The Family, and you pick up a copy of Jeff Sharlet's book, The Family, the reality starts to sink in. The list of names which have been connected to this shady, secretive, morally unanchored organization through the years is absolutely astonishing. We're not just talking here in the US either. Doug Coe, the organizations leader, can get an audience with leaders around the world at the drop of a dime.

If it hadn't been for recent events and what some of the people involved have had to say about The Family, I honestly don't think I would have taken any of it seriously. But, with all of that, it's pretty hard to just brush aside. Sharlet's book is also meticulously researched. He spent a month living at with members of The Family in one of their many compounds, where they provide training in learning how to "be broken" and to let Jesus give you direct guidance. The picture he paints is one of a power driven organization, which greedily guards it's secrecy in order to prevent direct opposition and riling the masses who since they have not been afforded power, are not as important to God and would therefore never understand. They are pawns to be moved about, manipulated and used for the ends of creating this singular world empire under God.

Having also read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, it's interesting to consider that one of the methods of gaining this power they are so bent on wielding is exactly the same kind of "pure capitalism" she described in her book. Sharlet's book presents the philosophical ground work for the events and many of the same people mentioned in her book. The two together provide a terrifying and compelling argument for the rise of a new group of people attempting to establish a new kind of Christian empire. To read Klein's book, the picture of a theology of economics which puts profit above all other things leaves only one small piece missing, the human conscience. The events and methods used to install this "pure capitalism" in various countries, even against the will of it's own people, and the results of this taking economies by force or by opportunity seems nearly inhuman, and though it can definitely be said there are many people in the world who need no other reason than profit doesn't cover how so many politicians and statesmen with a deep background in Christianity could possibly ignore the suffering created. Sharlet's book makes that all too clear. It's all in the service of a God bent on world domination through the use of men and women who are already in positions of power.

One passage concerns one of the members of leaders of The Family having a conversation at this compound (called Ivanwald) with a few of the other "brothers". He says to one of them, "What do you think I would think of you should you be found to be having sex with children?"

The brother to whom the question is directed responds, sanely, "I guess you'd think I was a bad person."

Doug Coe's son, the leader asking the question responds, "No, I wouldn't, because you're chosen."

In reading the book and the number of names who have some tie to The Family, it becomes relatively clear as to how current politics and public debate has become what it has. This is not heresay, some rumor picked up by the author and planted conveniently in his book to drive his point. This is a conversation he was present for, and considering The Family has taken no action against him to remove the book from the shelves or to prove they are not the organization he portrays them, what conclusion can be reached other than that either it's completely true, and therefore irrefutable or they find their secrecy and anonymity so important, they'd rather have this be revealed than to go through a public campaign to fight back. In the world of The Family, at least the one which they hope to help create, man made morality, as they refer to it, has no meaning. God's chosen are all that matters.

So, the next time you decide to just denounce the masses as ignorant crazies, remember from whom the agenda they are being fed comes. If you take the time to read the book, the reach of their influence is mind boggling and terrifying, and isn't something which should go unnoticed any longer.

The End of Death Panels? (sigh!)

2009-08-17T21:44:00.000-07:00

It seems as if now that the Democrats have pulled the "End Of Life Discussion" provision from the health care bill they're trying to pass. In combination with the amount of actual truthful information being thrown around most of the news outlets (to the effect that there was never going to be absolutely any "Death Panel"), the whole Death Panel thing is going to pass off the scene.

This makes me sad. Seriously.

I was enjoying this whole thing. It was conjuring up all kinds of wonderful images for me. I was really getting a whole lot out of this. First, it was good for my self esteem. I am a Huxley, Orwellian, Cuckoo's Nest loving freak. If the story involves some horrible government conspiracy, some terrifying vision of a dystopian future, I am all over it. I love that shit. Really, I know, you're shocked. I love this stuff enough, that occasionally, something akin to Orwellian night terrors creeps in, and I start getting worried. Then, I realize, "OH! Fuck, that's right. IT'S FUCKING FICTION!!!" I can certainly see segments of the population going over the line when it comes to things like freedom of speech. I mean, I don't know where you live, but every Halloween for the past ten years, in these parts some kids have gotten tracts in their bags explaining that Harry Potter is somehow allowing the devil in to control their souls or their bladders or their thumbs so they're shooting the American soldiers instead of the Islamofascist terrorists while playing the latest version of Rainbow 6 on their Weestation Box. Maybe, the devil is going to force them to tell someone about daddy's Playboy collection hidden in his closet or mom's boob job (which aren't really going to surprise anyone anymore). Besides which, in order for things to get really Orwellian 'round here we'd have to have government surveillance of citizens, and never ending wars to give the people something to fear and hate constantly and .......................... anyway.

I was having fun with this whole Death Panel idea. I'm thinking "Death Panel", and what comes to mind is something like Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery". I'm thinking of something much more American though. I'm thinking of voting. Really, think about it. If we could all write in to some government agency the names of say (for the sake of argument) twenty people we would like to see get roundly removed from this mortal coil, and they were counted and then all of the names with more than a certain number of votes were put in a lottery. We'd pick fifty or one hundred each time (again, just for the sake of argument). We could even put some more little spin on it. Maybe it would have to be people you actually have some kind of personal interaction with (because hey, we'd lose every one of our elected officials once or twice a year and we have a hard enough time with elections when we do hold them), you know, coworkers, family members, neighbors and so on. In other words, it would have to be people you actually know. Then, we could generate some revenue for the government by selling tickets and doing a pay per view kind of thing. Maybe, we could make it really interesting, and come up with a bunch of different ways for people to be systematically terminated. Then, you could give them a choice. It would be great. We could have a tiger cage, with a starving tiger in it, for those folks who are really defiant and want to go out fighting, with some dignity. For those people who just want it to be quick, with no pain, none of the last second crapping your pants or anything like that, they could go to sleep in a room in which gas then gets pumped in so they can't wake up, and have their beds pushed out of a cargo plane at thirty thousand feet, with cameras waiting at the landing point. How about inventing something incredibly terrible for people who get votes above a certain number. If they really get up there, you know, deeply despised by their communities, we could get to see them devoured by a pack of hungry weasels because their covered in chicken blood or something awesomely disgusting.

I'm thinking this might really do two things. First, maybe reality TV will finally end. If we've got real life, no bullshit barbarism, kick you in your tender pink parts kind of disgusting human behavior to look forward to once or twice a year, maybe we'll stop trying to set up these silly little games that are designed to approximate it as closely as possible. If we can really get our blood lust sated for really real, we might just back off this reality TV bullshit.

I also think it might mean a little more civility all around. Think about it. If you're in a convenience store and something really mean and degrading is about to come out of your mouth, you might think twice about it if you thought it might result in one more vote. At the same time, it could also result in better service, because shit, no one wants to face a hungry tiger just because they gave some schmucks shitty service when they were coming in for their grande latte enema.

Would there be exceptions? Would you be able to like, opt out for some reason? If you could prove you had some kind of severe mental illness, like bi-polar or schizophrenia, you get a pass. If your physiology literally makes it impossible for you to have reliable control over your behavior, you probably deserve a break. But let's not let this exceptions thing get out of hand either, "because God told me to" is not an excuse when you're not schizophrenic........... unless you're admitting to a whole other kind of mental illness, by proxy.

Think about it, really. There are probably some of you out there who are reading this right now and would love nothing more than to find a way to vote me off the island, the whole island, every island, forever. You might even pay thirty dirty dollars to see me get sent to that Great Unknown. If this had existed in the past, the chances are pretty good I'd not have made it this far, I understand this. But hey, I've got to set myself to the same standard as I would everyone else, right? Even if that standard is completely, absolutely, boffo, bugnuts, in-fucking-sane, I can't hold you to it and not me.

Hell, I don't know why we don't just do all of this with people who get the death penalty, we'd be able to rake in some real cash over it. You can't tell me for one second there aren't hundreds of thousands of people out there who would just be drooling in their popcorn for the opportunity to get to see criminals sent to their Final Judgment. I'm sensing a way to save the economy, and fast. We could really go for a Running Man kind of deal with those sentenced to death. I think a whole new industry would arise surrounding it. There would be companies dedicated to coming up with ways of turning the doing away with the condemned into something incredibly entertaining. Yes, I know, in the end of that movie, the wrongly convicted condemned guy pulls the whole machinery down and turns the populace against the people who were running it, but this is real life, that kind of shit doesn't happen. If you think about it, you've got a whole segment of the population which has been backing real, fundamental changes in the health care industry for quite a few years, and that shit still hasn't happened, and apparently isn't going to either. SO, let's just accept real life and the real world for what it is, and start to satiating that blood lust as deeply as we can, so we can possibly get some real shit done with the rest of our time and political lives.

Long Island, How Ambivalent I Am Toward Thee

2009-07-11T07:38:00.000-07:00

I'm visiting family on Long Island. I grew up here, and the drive here, if nothing else does reminded me why this is no longer home. The Long Island Expressway is often referred to as the Distressway, and this is appropriate. Bumper to bumper traffic, ranging from a dead stop to a top speed of thirty miles and hour can cause serious distress. I witness the level of distress this can cause in regular exposure while riding behind a Jeep Cherokee, the driver of which continued to punch the roof, dashboard, and steering wheel. He appeared to be screaming as well. I appreciated his sentiment, though since I'm not stuck in it very often, I wasn't too wound up about it. I appreciated more the entertainment he provided while sitting in traffic. It's fun to watch someone completely lose their shit in the confines of their own safe space, where no one can scold them for their outrageous behavior. He probably didn't realize someone was watching him.

Coming across the George Washington Bridge I realized I still haven't been back to NY enough for the skyline to look normal to me without the Twin Towers. People who have lived here these last ten years have probably become accustomed to it by now.

Long Island is crowded. There are more people living here than in the entire state of Virginia. This is not something most people in Virginia ever consider, because like the rest of the country, they don't consider anything about Long Island (1401 square miles, 5470 inhabitants per square mile, population of 7,448,618 as of 2000 census), unless by some unfortunate stroke of luck they have to visit for some reason. If it were it's own state (and there are some people on it who want it to be) it would be the 12th highest populated state in the nation. There are people everywhere. You can't escape. I'm currently sitting in a Panera Bread, specifically because i can count on free wireless internet here. I don't know if there are any small local coffee shops around which would have the good sense to provide wireless access. I've been away for too long, and the last length of time I spent on Long Island didn't involve thinking about wireless access.

Things have changed. Nine years is a long time to be gone from a place. I don't know what I expected. It's changed, but in it's way it's only changed to more of the same. More strip malls, more chain stores and restaurants, just morer. More people as well, one thing which absolutely wasn't needed. One interesting thing to me my reaction to being here. I don't feel any different. I don't feel any different driving around Long Island than I do driving around Richmond. No sense of anxiety or excitement, a little agitation at the occasional dipshit who needs to review the rules of the road, and getting flustered from getting turned around once or twice and not remembering how to get to where I want to be from where I am, but that's nothing any different than I would feel in Richmond if faced with exactly the same situation. I've twice now in a short time I've been here been interrupted by someone looking for someone they are supposed to be meeting, not the same person, but two different people. Both of those instances have involved some minute, quick feelings of anxiety, as I've seen them approaching with that quisitive look and for a second I think, "is this someone I don't remember, and if so, what's the possibility I don't remember them because I last encountered them in a state of drunken lunacy, and what did I do?" This doesn't happen in Richmond.

I think I'm going to take a ride out to the east end tomorrow so that I can take some pictures. I don't think the people back home have really been able to grasp the vulgarity of the wealth and affluence out there, and since I can't drag them down here and throw them on the lawns, I can post some pictures here, since it's more than likely that only my friends are reading this anyway. If you're reading this and I don't know you, the context of finding some pictures of opulent beach houses and resort estates is going to be lost on you, but you'll probably find the pictures pretty cool anyway. It might be so opulent and such a flaunting of wealth as to be vulgar, but some of the houses (and the castle, on the beach...) are pretty gorgeous. There's a whole lot floating around in my head that I can't really put into something coherent enough for other people to understand right now, but I'll let it sit for a while and try again later.

Besides, the family's going to start getting itchy if I'm gone for too long.

Richmond is truly my home now. It's where the life I've actively made is, not the lifee I stumbled into, over or through. Though there's been plenty of stumbling, and tripping over life in Richmond, it's the place I decided to make my stand and lay my roots, and I have. If I can say nothing else about all of this, that much is true, and good. It's good to have a home, because I don't think Long Island was ever a home to me in the same way Richmond is. My biological family may still be here, but my family of choice and affection is in Richmond, and I guess that's what makes it home.

To Iran, with respect.

2009-06-19T22:23:00.000-07:00

There's an amazing thing happening in our world today. For a long time, I've thought something to be true of human beings. In fact, it's one of the things that forms the basis of some of the beliefs I hold most true. People, whether they realize it or not, whether or not it is something they actually consciously think about, inside all people, the fundamental nature of human sentience is the desire and drive to be free. It is something which can never be successfully crushed or removed. It is, so far as I can tell, above all else this drive is what it is to be human. To my mind, the history of humanity is little other than a very slow trudge toward greater freedoms for all.

Right now, another example of this idea is being made real. In Iran, thousands have taken to the streets in protest. These protests began as an expression against what they believed was an illegitimate election. As a result of the speech by the Supreme Leader Khomenei in which he supported the election results and threatened the use of force against future protests, these protests have necessarily become in challenge to the power structure in the country and the theocratic government which holds that power.

There are many lessons to be learned from all of this, many of which we have yet to be able to see. One thing is undeniable, even at this early point in this situation. This, was only a matter of time. It has been thirty years since the revolution which ended with the creation of The Islamic Republic, the formal name of the Iranian government. In thirty short years, enough of a disenfranchisement has taken root in the people for them to be taking to the streets to express this disenfranchisement. We here, in the United States, have rung our hands, beaten our breasts and feigned outrage at the actions and attitudes of the Iranian government. And nothing we have done, in the whole history of our interactions with Iran, none of our actions have been as important in the developments we're seeing now than the Internet. None of our political actions, none of our sanctions, none of our speeches, grandstanding, nothing has done as much as the invention of and resulting availability of the Internet, and the free exchange of information. Even in Iran, where the Internet faces relatively serious restriction, people have found a way to exchange information freely.

Make no mistake, as of now, there is no way to say what will happen in Iran. These protests may be crushed under the boots of the military and the militias, and we may not hear again for a long time from the people of Iran. Should these protests be crushed and many of those face imprisonment and death, it could spread enough fear as to keep anyone from participating in any such actions for a long time to come. We may see these protests produce some fruit of change in Iran. Either way we are seeing history right now, and another piece of the history of mankind's struggle for freedom. Either way, the people have made their voice heard, beyond Iran, and the world now knows there is a difference between the Iranian government and it's people.

Though I believe in the freedom of the Iranian people to express themselves as they see fit, and I would hope that expression bears fruit in the form of fundamental changes in Iran's society and the kinds of freedom which the people have available to them. There are those who have already begun to call for the United States government and President Obama express their unity with the people of Iran, and pledge our backing. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. It is one thing to express a belief in the Iranian peoples ability to express themselves freely. It is another to weigh in on the situation more specifically. If the Iranian people are going to achieve freedom, it must be their achievement. The impetus must at least be on them to go to the lengths necessary to show they are willing to go the full length of the battle to win their own freedom, and that they are capable of working together enough to even place some opposition before the power structure in the country. We need to stay out of this, until the people of Iran are asking for our assistance and they've have shown they are willing to fight the battles it will take to free themselves. We may be able to provide certain support at that time, financially, etc, but it must be the Iranian people who win their freedom or it will be no freedom won. They will have gone from being under the boot of the theocracy of Iran to the corporatocracy of the United States. The Iranian people could have an opportunity to do something incredible, and my hopes are with them, as little as that might mean considering the realities they face.

It is history we are seeing, and considering the kind of history we've been seeing so regularly for the past ten or so years, it's a hopeful sign to see a positive history happening. It's good to see people in the world still willing to make sacrifices for their freedoms and their rights. It's good to see people reaching for the best of what they and we all are. If nothing, it should remind us what we had to do, everyday people, to gain the freedoms we claim so regularly to value and believe in.

The Creeping Death..........

2009-06-11T10:11:00.001-07:00

No, with the title The Creeping Death, I'm not referring to some weird flu I've picked up or something. I'm not referring to a state I'm wishing on anyone. I'm referring to the slow, painful process of getting back to a place where I don't completely hate every single person on the planet I don't already know and like. I'm not so wound up. It's leaving or dying, but slowly. I'm taking the "Go on, git!" attitude toward it.

Some of this can be attributed to a few conversations with some people I love and respect (Misters K.P., A.L., J.A. and S.M., I sincerely thank you). Some of this can be attributed to actually getting a job interview and a call back interview from one of the thousand or so resume's I've sent out in the last few months. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get the job, but it was nice to get an interview from SOMEONE, as that's the first in a while, and it was cool to get a call with some more questions. It at least makes me feel like I haven't been wasting my time in that effort.

I haven't changed my mind about the fact that I've more or less given up on trying to help make life better for my fellow human beings. I am still convinced that most of them are too lazy or too dumb to even contribute to the effort, but now I just don't care.

That may come across as extremely selfish, and maybe it is, I can't really say. But, one of the reasons for this is that in the frenzy to try and understand how to make a difference, how to make a change, something kind of got lost. What got lost is the idea that although it's not at all perfect, my life these days is pretty good. Even though I do hate it, I have a job. I have a nice place to live, and a used car I thoroughly enjoy driving, a scooter that is just an incredible joy to ride (it induces a large grin every, single time), and even more than that, good people in my life who I've managed to establish a history with. I'm dating a really wonderful women (who has put up with me for the last few months with a grace I can probably learn something from), and some really awesomely intelligent, caring friends. Things aren't at all what I would have planned, this is certain. But they're still pretty good. I haven't been focusing on making the most of the time I have with the people I care about and enjoying the things I do have. I've been driving myself crazy over questions I'm obviously either ill equipped or incapable of developing answers to. At the end of the day, the answer really is, some people are just assholes, and that's it. There's nothing more to it. I don't have to know why or even care. I just have to let them be assholes and go about trying to enjoy the people who aren't and the things I enjoy.

I realized over the past week or so that the difference between myself and most of the people I share this particular swath of land we're calling a country is values. I've come across some people who share the same values I do. It's one of the things which is most important in establishing those friendships which are so crucial to me, keeping me connected emotionally, mentally and for lack of a better term, spiritually, to the rest of the world. My bend toward isolating myself in those particular ways is probably my least useful or effective trait.

This would leave me with only one thing, in myself, which needs a solution. This unyielding impetus to help other people. I sometimes really just wish I could do away with that, because it would make my life much easier. But the fact of the matter is that whether I like it or not (and it is one of those things I often do like about myself), it's there and I have yet to find a way to excise it completely. It just is. I don't know how it got there or why, so I can't really take credit for it in any way, but it's there. The solution to this, is simple. One at a time. Just one person at a time, given the experience and qualifications I have, trying to help one person who feels alone and lost and without any anchor or idea how to do things any differently than they are but actually wants to. Just one. This might seem like a cop out. To some degree it is, I'm aware of that. It's either that or drive myself mad, and I'm not really willing to go there these days. Sanity and some semblance of piece of mind are worth too much to me to make that trade. Myself and the people I care about deserve better.

There's something else I don't expect is going to change any time soon either. I'm going to continuously be confronted with different varieties of insane absurdity. Both my own, and those we've more or less agreed to as a people. The solution to that is humor. I'm going to point and laugh at it. I'm hereby refusing to take it seriously. I think that is a good deal of the problem I've been experiencing. When you take the absurdly insane seriously, you're going to start going insane yourself. The speed with which you realize this is key. At least this is true in my case.

It's a crazy world, it's going to be a crazy world, nothing I'm going to do is going to change any of that, and if I don't want to be completely insane as well, all I can do is laugh at it.

So, in short, humanity is safe, from me at least. Unless that is, being laughed at is going to kill you or drive you permanently insane. If that is the case, well, too bad for you.

Verbalocolypse

2009-05-11T15:38:00.000-07:00

At work recently, one of my supervisors came up to me and asked me if anyone had talked to me about "reverse greeting". Now, when I think greeting, I think "Hi, how are you?", "Welcome", you know, that kind of stuff. So, when you say to me "reverse greeting", I think "You have got some balls showing up here. Get the fuck out. Who the fuck do you think you are? I am going to knock you the fuck out." I think this is logical. In my experience, this would be sensible to assume as the concept being conveyed when combining these two words. Greeting, and the reverse of greeting. But no, this is not what reverse greeting is. I was informed reverse greeting is simply asking someone why they didn't buy anything when they're leaving your store. It's rude, and annoying, but that's not the issue right now. It's calling it reverse greeting, instead of just calling it asking someone why they didn't buy anything.

Has anyone else noticed this trend? Is it just me or do we seem to be making up all kinds of phrases and words to either hide what we're really trying to do or say, and making shit up so we create some kind of feeling of superiority within whatever community it happens to be? It's one of those things each industry seems to develop on their own. One of the first one's I ever remember hearing was "talent". In the entertainment industry they call actors, comedians and such, "talent". On talk shows, the guests are "talent". What happens when your guest is Tom Cruise, Paris Hilton or Bill O'Reilly? Do you still call them talent? They're not "talent". They're guests on your talk show. If it's a movie, they're actors. Maybe they have talent, but maybe they don't. Considering the state of the entertainment industry, using the word talent too liberally is just pretty much a bullshit way of convincing yourself you're not in a sinking ship. Changing to a new word does not constitute a lifeboat. Unless, of course, the word was Blackwater, and the word is now XE (because those two letters have magical powers to erase human memory, and to erase law). Possibly if the phrase is AIG, and you change it to "Sufficiently Bullwhipped Into Understanding Our Prior Idiocy", it might make a difference.

I use AIG to make a point. Lots of the masters of the financial world used some really creative arithmetic with a load of bullshit added in to sell a bunch of worthless shit for boatloads of money. They called them "derivatives", and "Sub-prime loans" instead of worthless piles of shit. It's kind of hard to sell a worthless pile of shit though. We're now calling them "toxic assets" instead of worthless piles of shit. Call them The Queens Nipples if you want, but they're still worthless pieces of shit. And the really sick thing is that nobody even really understands what a fucking derivative is. I actually watched some of the Congressional hearings about our current economic mess, during which the theater was dramatic and the bullshit was piled high as the members of Congress "grilled" the heads of half a dozen banks. All of them, without exception said of derivatives, "They're very complicated financial instruments. I don't even completely understand them." Really? These are the financial wiz kids we're trying to make sure don't leave for a more appealing opportunities? I don't really understand how it is we want to keep people in place who would sink trillions of dollars into "complicated financial instruments" they don't completely understand. I'm sorry, but if the people you're trying to keep in place to watch your money are the people who came up with the idea of throwing money into derivatives you probably need to pack your shit too Skippy. In fact, I'm thinking that bringing back the Hooverville just for folks so intent on keeping these brain trusts. Giving them a pink slip with a print out of directions to their tent attached would sound about right.

We're doing this all over the place. One of my personal favorites is "monetize". What the fuck does monetize mean? It means to make money off of something, profit. But no, you don't say "how do we make money off of this?" You say, "How do we monetize this?" Because God fucking forbid you don't sound like you've got your lingo down, because if you don't say monetize, your idea probably isn't any good. It's probably not flashy enough, not sexy enough or useless enough to really sell to people. Then again, maybe we're coming up with new ways to say "make money off of" because we're afraid to be confronted with just how much we're trying to "monetize" everything conceivable. "Incentivize" is another good one, instead of providing incentives, you incentivize. In other words, you come up with ways to convince people they need your useless shit. No, actually, you convince people they are going to be better, happier, prettier, more well adjusted people by buying your useless shit. You incentivize them into believing the bullshit you're selling. Instead of not selling a piece of shit, and coming up with a really good idea, we spend the time we should have spent coming up with a good idea "incentivizing" a bad idea. Awesome. Brilliant. Sometimes, you "incentivize" people with something that would actually be a good thing or a good idea if it weren't dependent on the thing your trying to sell actually being worth something. It's like saying, "we'll give you a free bag for this beautiful, life fulfilling, image enhancing pile of shit". If I say, "I'll take the bag, keep the pile of shit," the response is, "well, you have to buy the pile of shit to get the free bag to put it in." I have been incentivized.

One of the best I've heard in a long time comes from the internet media community. They were talking specifically about programming available on the internet. They were using the phrase, "breaking the space/time continuum". Now, maybe it's just me, but if any schmuck with a PC or laptop can break the space/time continuum, I have suddenly become fully in favor of strictly restricting internet access, to me, and me only. It would certainly be a different experience, but I trust myself not to do anything which we currently believe could possibly unravel the very fabric of the universe. Right now, I'm not that interested in trying to find out if there really is some kind of existence beyond this one, so I trust that I'd do everything within my power to avoid such an event. There aren't too many other people out there I'd trust with that kind of power. But, don't worry, this is all completely theoretical since, in terms of internet media, "breaking the space/time continuum" just means that you can watch or listen to something anytime you want. It means there's no specific window of time you can catch that programming. You don't have to be sitting in front of your PC or Mac at eight p.m. to see the latest episode of "Soulless Over Indulgent Spoiled Bitches of New York City". The future of civilization is saved, you can watch it anytime you want. Yes, they are actually calling this breaking the space/time continuum. Talk about a severe inferiority complex. Maybe the internet isn't such a threat to the current entertainment industry after all. They just have a faster, less disciplined (and even though I never thought it possible), more grandiose variety of bullshit. Ooh, aren't we all lucky? Those folks out there waiting patiently for the internet to save humanity and turn the world into a Utopia have obviously missed some details. Apparently, the internet media industry is subconsciously trying to destroy the universe instead. I guess there's some possibility the Christian Right has been correct all along, The American Entertainment Complex just might be a tool of Satan.

Does anyone remember the big hoo ha over ebonics a while back? It was at some point in the nineties. There was a whole controversy over ebonics. If you are of the tender age to have never heard of the term ebonics, it basically meant urban slang. Should we have classrooms for ebonics, like classrooms for kids who are learning english as a second language, but haven't quite gotten to the point to be able to understand it at the level of classroom interaction? Should we provide ebonics interpreters in government agencies? On the other side of the discussion, ebonics was going to whittle away the foundation for Western civilization, and needed to be crushed. Yes, this was an actual issue at one point. I know, I know, don't yell at me, I didn't come up with it. But, if you weren't around at the time, the explosion of hip-hop into mainstream culture scared the living daylights out of white folks everywhere, and this was one of the things they came up with in response to their terror. It was ridiculous, and it still is. Now, every five or ten years we also go back through the argument about whether or not to make English the "official language" of The United States. You know, the whole "this is America, learn to speak the language" thing. Here's my question: how the hell is this any different from the current variety of language we're making up? Personally, on a day to day level, it's never seemed to cause me any trouble if someone has a hard time speaking English. Mathematics, on the other hand, seem extremely important. I've never had someone who wasn't proficient in the English language hand me the wrong change for a twenty, and this is important to me. On the other hand, if someone is speaking what I recognize is somehow strongly akin to English, and they're using a whole variety of words which have either developed some completely new meaning or are using a bunch of words which sound very much as if they're based in the English language but aren't quite English, I seem to believe I can communicate with them effectively. Maybe that's my mistake. Maybe just calling someone a pretentious asshole instead of trying to communicate any more complicated concept is where those interactions really need to start. Now, as I write this down and look at it, I realize that these are two things which I also equate with severe, debilitating mental illness. "Oh, you are obviously unable to process the fact that the rest of the English speaking world doesn't recognize the word you're using in the context you're using it, and you have none of the signs that you don't actually understand the meaning of the word. You are convinced, utterly of your understanding. You are probably mentally ill, and it's in all of our best interest for me to not bring that up right now. I'm going to nod and try to find a way to get out of this conversation." Or in another situation, "I understand the phonetic assemblage you just produced as letters and sounds in the English language, but that, was not a word whose origin is based in the English language or even a vernacular I've ever encountered. I have not in any way conveyed the idea to you that I speak any other languages or English based vernacular. You seem to be completely unable to understand that this is not a word. I'm going to assume you are developing this language with a variety of other persons, whom I probably can't see, and I'm going to back away, slowly."

I'm just wondering who it is that comes up with this stuff? Does every industry have it's own set of brain trusts sitting around in some little room trying to come up with words or phrases that sound more important than the actual words describing the idea they're trying to get across? Is this what they do when they're not playing World Of Warcraft? Is this how they make money to support their Second Life? Or is it a bunch of deusche bags sitting around eating a piece of arugula with a red onion draped over it (and paying $75 a plate for it) and just making shit up in order to seem superior to the other idiot sitting across the table? Does the other idiot think to himself "My God, I don't know what that means, but I can't ask either, because then, it'll seem like he knows more than me. I'll just figure it out later and use it on someone else." Is this where all this is coming from? Is it all coming from something that finds it's origins in the subconscious of teenage boys? If this is the case, we are really in trouble, because let us not forget, when confronted with a pair of boobs, teenage boys lose the ability to speak, use reason, solve even simple problems or do simple mathematics. I'm not making fun, I was a teenage boy once, so I understand, but you do have to evolve some. I can actually string together four or five words when confronted with a pair of boobs now............... if I concentrate. They are usually along the lines of "Wow. This is fucking awesome". I can count two. I have progressed.

But maybe that's the whole thing. Maybe this is a bunch of guys coming up with all of this crap in order to out do each other, and in a subconscious effort to keep the women away from the board room, because let's face it, it's not a game women play. They just don't get it. Maybe this is what's really behind the disparity in the number of female executives compared to males. It's like they're terrified of women discovering their own secret weapon. They're not actually afraid of the women, they're just afraid of what a pair of boobs in a low cut top is going to do to their ability to stay on top. If a magnificent example of feminine beauty and grace were to make it into their brain storming sessions, they might be able to come up with the kinds of ideas that have led our economy to the heights we're experiencing today. For fucks sake, we're still cave men. That's it, isn't it? We just have clubs with microchips and wireless access now.

Declaration of Absurdity

2009-04-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

I've had it. Fed fucking up. Over fed, in fact. The vomiting on my own shoes kind, and if you're sitting too close, probably yours too.

It's time to play, to start making fun, like the idea of Humvee sized, flesh eating bunnies. Night of the Lepers, if you've never seen it is amazing for nothing except a complete belief in it's lack of absurdity.

I'm declaring absurdity. It's time to start laughing at all of this. It's time to start acknowledging and recognizing the level of and incipient nature of the absurdity on display and at work in our public sphere. It's time to starting making absurdity live and direct, no filter. It's time to pull back the curtain and expose the wizards. Basically, it's time to start having a good laugh at the expense of all those who've been having one at ours for a long, long, long, (longer than John Holmes johnson) time.

The first stage is complete. In the first stage there is a long and drawn out declaration of outrage. I think we've made ourselves clear. We're fed up. But, we've made ourselves clear, we're fed up and everyone knows it. And what has come of it? Not a thing kids. We've still got whole industries dedicated to making our outrage into their next strategy. Spin, as it's so called. Which in itself is interesting, since the implication to something spinning is that it's either spinning it's wheels and going nowhere or digging a whole, both of which are appropriate considering how we've ended up. Yes, we've elected a new president, whom I believe is a good man, with his heart in the right place for certain. The fact is though, that until we start making clear that we see the wizard behind the curtain, they're all going to keep making it their business to change the curtains and call it both progress and change. I don't care which party you're talking about. The Democrats, in their overwhelming majority have succeeded in doing nothing but splintering amongst themselves. Half of them can't even pay their taxes. The other half are screaming incessantly about the irresponsibility of putting our entire economy at risk to further an ideology which is obviously failing. Irony doesn't describe it, absurdity does. The Republicans, well, they're completely unable to recognize that a clear majority of the voting public have gotten considerably tired of their shtick, so they're not presenting anything at all like real pragmatic or sensible solutions. Presenting theater while the city burns isn't a solution, unless you're house is high enough on the hill to be out of danger.

We've spent the better part of a decade mired in an argument about creationism vs. science. One side is serious in suggesting the planet is only six thousand years old, and that back in the good old days, we rode Tyrannosaurs to plow fields. The other side has spawned the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, whose critical analysis and debate skills are only matched by the unfettered, unmitigated ambition of trying to be the Man Who Shined The Light On The Huddling Masses. Megalomania is good copy and good business because it does sell books, but it's not presenting much in the way of solutions. The shelves are full of books arguing each side, and few making the newest in scientific achievement and theory accessible to the laymen. Compromise isn't good business. Sanity has become a poor attribute in the politics of this particular problem, from which springs a whole host of other problems. One of the most distressing is that considering our particular history, there are people still putting forth the idea that separate but equal is sensible and possible to propagate. Patently absurd.

We've got media institutions which are no longer in the business of reporting facts, but broadcasting the absurdity in service to their own revenue streams. The longer the argument continues, and the deeper any side digs in their heels, the more simply they are able to continue to draw an audience. All they have to do is fan the flames, keep the spinners digging the hole and being the megaphones for the people to whom solutions aren't the answer, and only victory is acceptable. In too many cases, even our media outlets have come to display and bow down to the specific ideologies, political parties, and a very obvious, pure bias. Presenting facts in order to insure a well informed electorate has become a quaint idea.

We are imprisoning citizens at a rate of five times the world's average. One in 35 adults is incarcerated or under state supervision. Our streets aren't demonstratively safer (the worse the economy gets, the less safe we will be as well), and we now face the very real possibility of a failed state on our border, whose vicious, animalistic, savage domestic enemies we fund. We, the people fund the drug cartels. They're level of activity in our country has only grown by leaps and bounds in the last few years. Check the statistics on kidnappings in the southwest, Arizona specifically, if you aren't aware of the size of that problem yet. We can't really blame anyone but ourselves for that. We can however demand some very new ideas about how to solve these problems instead of the same tired, ineffective rhetoric which we've been wallowing in for a few decades. More theater which has done well to keep us entertained, but is also in the way of getting down to the nitty, gritty of developing ideas which actually work.

We have a tax code which is so esoteric, so incredibly obtuse it would confound both Eintstein and Jesus Christ. Let's also not forget that for all it's inane complexity, it's sheer length, it's somehow still legal to hide money in offshore accounts if you can afford to use them. And if you can't afford the kind of accountant or lawyer who can manipulate the law in your favor, well, you'd better have some Vaseline handy, have a good back, and be flexible enough to grab your ankles. You're fucked, one way or the other.

I'm declaring absurdity. Within the next few months I'm going to begin a campaign of absurdity. I'm going to bring the Theater to the thespians. It's time to start having a laugh at their expense since they've been having many at ours for all these years now. It's time to pull back the curtain and see what a venal, angry, self centered little man the wizard is. It's time for the people to start making a joke at the jokers expense. If it's fools they believe us to be, it's fools we should give them.

Politics Personal

2009-02-26T12:35:00.000-08:00

In watching the address given a few nights ago by our new President, there was one thing which really caught my attention. It's something he's mentioned before, but which some part of me really did expect to go by the wayside once he actually took office. He talked about the idea of tying together community service or volunteering with funding higher education. This is an idea I've been very attracted to for a long, long time. It's something I think we should have been having a national discussion about a long time ago, if not already implemented.

I've gone back and forth with the idea of going to college full time for a number of years. There are many reasons I haven't moved in that direction. Some of them are as simple as not having the confidence that I'd be able to actually make the most of it and take advantage of the opportunity and put my full effort into it. Some of it was a fear of finding out I'm not quite as smart as I think I am. Some of it was simple economics. I applied once a number of years ago, but I was only 23 at the time, and so far as financial aid for college is concerned, you're not completely independent until you're 24. I had no real contact with my parents at the time and certainly wasn't going to ask them to help finance my education after some period of estrangement, so I put it off. Later, I was consistently vexed by the application process for both college and financial aid. I wasn't organized enough to be able to track down all of the documents and such they were asking for. I'd get sufficiently frustrated over time, and just give up.

Recently though, I've actually gone through the whole process and applied for both college and financial aid. It's tedious, at best, but at this point, it's worth it. I've become uncomfortable enough with the prospect of spending another five or ten years employed in some area I both care nothing about and which isn't fulfilling to me at all. No matter the money, I'm not going to be happy punching a clock and collecting a paycheck for no reason other than to do so. I will work while I'm in school, but being in college and putting in the effort is at least enough work and opportunity to progress toward something I'll be happy with and passionate about to hold me over until I am qualified to be employed doing something like that.

The other night I watched the presidential address, and he brought something up again which I have felt passionately about for a long time and which was a big part of my decision to vote for him. He brought up the idea of tying funding for higher education with community service and volunteer work. It's something I've felt passionately about for a long time. It's also something which has been part of what has kept me from developing enough desire to move toward a higher education. Personally, I'd appreciate financial aid in going to school. I'm happy it exists, and I think it's good for the country to have it available. I've never wanted it for nothing though. I've been uncomfortable with the idea that some degree of financial aid is more or less free. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's some principle which says it shouldn't be that way. In fact, I think it should be. But, I'm a single guy, with no children and very little responsibility. I don't have a child at home to support while I'm going to school. I just have me to worry about. Personally, I haven't really felt completely comfortable with the idea of just taking that kind of money from public funding with nothing given in return from me. I'm also a huge proponent of the idea that we, as a society, do something which is demonstrates that we value service to the community. I also think more people serving in their communities will help to re-establish a sense of community which has largely been lost, and that will help to create a new attitude toward our fellow citizens which will serve us well.

There's been this catch 22 in it though. I don't want to take money for free. I've done so in the past when I had to, but it was never in the form of public funding. Some of it, I'm sure is pride. I can't say that's not true. Again, I don't think it's bad that it's available, and there for people to use when they need it. I don't begrudge or bewail those who have or are taking some kind of public assistance. I just felt a lot more comfortable with accepting help from people specifically deciding to do so. I guess I always felt I'd be taking some amount of money from the public coffers which could go to someone who either needed or deserved it more. Again, it's always been just me and I never really needed much to live and sometimes felt the position I was in was my own doing and didn't feel right about accepting public help to get out of it. So, I've worked when I could. The thing is, without an education, it's become nearly impossible in the last ten or twenty years to find a job which doesn't leave you precariously close to a the precipice of financial emergency. I've worked, and in working with the hope of moving up and all that, there's been little time to serve or volunteer, except in one or two areas which have been necessary for my own emotional and psychological well being. There wasn't time for both a full life and volunteering a few days a week, if I wanted to be employed to a degree which would allow me to be progressing in that employment in the future.

Tying the funding of higher education to community service and volunteer work is a good answer for someone like me. I can take a year, live off a part time wage, volunteer and do community service, and give myself to it fully because first of all I'd love to do it, but also because I will be able to know it's going to mean I'm not accepting public funding for education for nothing. I will have given something for what I get. I have just had trouble with the idea that I was going to accept public funding for something that really was just all about me making more money and having a more materially comfortable life.

I've applied for a political science program specifically because I want to take part in trying to help legislation like this get through. I finally figured out that I'm not going to be comfortable with making a decent wage which affords me some material comfort in life if I'm not also working toward giving other people the same kinds of opportunity. I'm not going to be happy making a pot load of money if I'm not helping people get ahead as well. I'd like to make a pot load of money, just like most other people, but I'll be pretty miserable if it's just about me and the material stuff I want. Somehow, I have a great deal of conviction in the idea that the well being of the people in my community is directly tied to my own well being. I honestly think that for me, an it's one of the very few opportunities to have the best of both worlds. There's plenty of money to be made in a career related to politics, and there's also plenty of opportunity to try and do things which are measurably and recognizably helpful to people. Maybe that's a bit naive, but I'll trade the pot load of money for a lower middle class income if I'm able to live a happy life being useful to other human beings, and which I can make it through with my integrity intact.

I really hope that legislation goes through and that this is something that becomes a reality. It's the first time, probably in the whole of my life I've been able to look at something related to government and see a direct correlation between policy and my own ability to progress and make more of myself while also keeping both my values and integrity intact. Probably the biggest reason I voted for the guy is specifically because he talked frequently in his campaign about putting a new emphasis on service. I'll be very happy and very content to have cast my vote if this does come to fruition.

2009-01-15T10:44:00.000-08:00

In the New York Times, this week, there was another story concerning the remaining funds set aside for the TARP fund. You know what I mean, that whole finance industry thing which was past back in September. Citigroup, which has already recieved $45 billion dollars in money from that fund, taxpayer money, looks like it might be splitting into pieces in order to ensure it's continued existence. If you either read or take a look back at the previous entry to this blog, you can get an idea exaclty how I feel about the $45 billion dollar bill taxpayers are footing for Citigroup. In total, banks have received $200 billion dollars. Yes, I am talking in billions here.

The current Secretary of the Treasury, is subtly warning the Obama team that using any of the remaining funds is a bad idea, because banks continued losses are going to dictate that we turn the rest of the money ($350 billion dollars yet to be dispursed) over to the crumbling financial giants. Obama is suggesting some serious help be provided for people caught in the housing nightmare and facing foreclosures. Paulson, seems to think these banks are in such a precarious position that they will falter and possibly collapse should we not shore up these failing institutions. The shock waves of these institutions failing could cripple the economy. This, is actually true.

Is Citigroup splitting necessarily a bad thing though? Would a split like that be a good recipe for survival for some of these other megacorp banks? Considering the fact that the initial argument for the TARP fund to be created was that many of these companies are just too big to fail, would it be bad for some of them to get smaller? And how about this, if $45 billion dollars isn't enough to restore security to the solvency of your company, how do you expect to be able to consistently keep a business that size agile enough to be able to take the necessary steps to keep the company from buckling, and effecting consumers, stockholders, and financial markets as a whole, in an environment which is as unusual as that which we face now? Let's also not forget the question that has yet to be answered by every financial institution we have already provided, what did you do with the money we gave you already?

Americans have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to many things which have brought us to this point. Our attitude toward the corporate world and the executive class has been very different than the one we have toward just about every other aspect and area of our society. Take into account the fact that Bernie Madoff is sitting in his multimillion dollar penthouse right now, waiting for his trial to begin. Bernie Madoff is accused of absconding with many peoples entire life savings, leaving some of them destitute. And I'm serious, destitute. Nothing left. If I had stolen millions of dollars from peoples homes, from their bank accounts, and any place else I could find it, and still had a number of those assets at my disposal, I'd be sitting in a cell somewhere. Madoff's crime though, is a white collar crime, so you know, it's different. It's not really dangerous crime. He might be a bad guy, but he's not "EVIL", like a drug dealer or bank robber. Give me a fucking break with this shit already. Sure, the crimes Madoff is accused of aren't related to violence in any way, and that really should be taken into account, but the sheer scope and the effects on the victims are incredible. In the past, criminal enterprise of this scope has been related to organized crime, the Al Capone's and so on. This could possible be something completely new in American crime, and for that alone, anyone accused of this kind of thing should be sitting in a cell. This guy has the kind of money, in property, sitting around his penthouse, to disappear for a long time. I don't think that's going to happen, but laws are supposed to be based on principles of harmony and equality.

Let's take something else which has hit the news in the last week, and a little close to home for me. From 2005 to 2007, Starbucks attempted to corner the market on the coffee industry by opening 1400 stores. Take into consideration that Starbucks cheif competitors are the thousands of small, mom and pop run coffee shops across the country, not another multibillion dollar corporation. It was a bold move, to put it mildly, and created a mountain of debt for the company. Starbucks has closed six hundred stores in 2008, that's a lot of lost jobs, it's earnings have been far from forecasted, and in response it's stock is dropping, creating a need for the company to do something to settle the worried nerves of stockholders. The response to that need was a 3% cut in labor, specifically in it's lowest level management positions, and declining to continue to match in the employees 401k plan. These are people who got those postions because they were deemed responsible and to have excelled in their previous positions. Starbucks customers, as a result, are facing a drop in levels of service, simply because there are fewer people in their stores, and the best people in their stores are there less often. Starbucks has also laid off a number of it's low level corporate employees and replaced them with contract, non-benefit labor, in order to cut costs as well. Then, this week news surfaced that in December, during the holiday season, the busiest part of the year in the retail sector, as Starbucks was cutting labor (therefore income for it's employees) it was taking possession of a corporate jet estimated to cost $45 million dollars. Now, for a company which has to have a working knowledge of many of it's suppliers practices, I don't have a particular hatred or distain for the idea of a corporate jet. If a farm in Guatemala should suffer some fire or freeze or some other kind of crop destroying issue, it's going to be good for farmers, and the entirety of Starbucks company and labor base to be able to send people who will be able to help find solutions, immediately. But, this is jet number 3, and this jet spent it's first two weeks in the Starbucks fleet in Hawaii, where Starbucks does no business with farmers, they carry no Hawaiian grown coffees. In fact, that jet was in Hawaii, so CEO Howard Schultz could spent the holidays there with his family. Starbucks statement related to the procurement of the jet says the jet was ordered three years ago, when the company was in a better financial position and not taking possession of the jet would have cost too much money in penalties and lost deposits, etc. to not do so. Well, this sounds good right? Not so fast. The investment community is not convinced. Apparently, the jet could have been sold, prior even to completion, at a profit because of the three year waiting list, and the investment community is not looking very favorably on this revelation. When you're losing money, you sell the things you don't need, especially if you could make a profit. For the more practical minded in the investment industry, you take care of your workers and your stockholders first, then you can have all the toys you want. Somehow, corporate culture in America has gotten the idea that this kind of thing is perfectly acceptable. I don't know exactly what's going to wake people up to the idea that we've had a wild west environment going on in the upper echelon of corporate America in which a very wealthy and powerful few have a continuous record of looking specifically at personal gain, personal wealth (to a degree which is practically vulgar), and personal status, that have wide ranging effects on the people not only in their company, but also across the economy.

I know a Starbucks employee who's spouse was a building contractor, who's business had evaporated in the last year, and was in the earliest stages of foreclosure when her own income was cut as a result of the labor cuts. They have five children, and now, because the foreclosure market is in high gear, moving things as quickly as possible in order to beat any possible legislation which would prevent foreclosures, they have thirty days to find a new place to live. Think about the number of different things which had to happen to put these people in this position. There's the housing bubble, combined with the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, two things the finance industry absolutely created through a blatantly greedy, completely insane creation of various financial products promising to turn turds into gold. Alchemy through equations. There's a lack of interest by law makers to address the position home owners have been put in by the actions of people whom they've had no contact with, whom they've often done no business with, and whose actions they have neither supported nor berated. As a result of the housing market collapse, the entire economy goes wobbly at the knees, and people start losing their jobs, companies start cutting back on labor etc. At this point, the people taking the hit aren't only people who tried to buy too much house.

One in fifty four homes in the USA is under foreclosure. That's a 225% rise from last year. Homes which aren't in foreclosure, aren't worth the mortgages people are paying because the market has tanked. People are losing jobs, income, homes, and everything. And what's going on in the halls of power and influence across the country? Jets are being bought, those responsible for this mess are being rescued, two and three times, on the credit of future generations of the people who are being most effected and losing the most, with little help, no bail out, nothing. It's time to wake up kids, the class warfare which the Republicans were accusing Obama of during the election, has been going on for thirty or forty years, except it's been war on the middle and lower class, waged by politicians and corporate greed mongers using the weapons of indifference, ignorance, and misinformation. The health of the entire nation is now at risk because of it. It's time we no longer accept the simple rhetoric, purposefully misleading, and techniques of distraction which have kept our lower and middle classes from focusing on the truth and consequences related to the actions of the people who can make decisions which effect the whole of the nation.

Today, we've got a really big shoe.....

2008-12-15T09:54:00.000-08:00

Maybe it was a size ten. Maybe it was a size twelve or even fourteen or a Shaq size twenty one. No matter the size of the actual shoe, it's the biggest shoe in the world at this point. That's right, I'm talking about the Iraqi journalist who hauled his shoes at President Bush. Muntadar al-Zeidi jumped to his feet during a press conference and proceeded to hurl his shoes at the President. "This is a farewell kiss, you dog," he yelled in Arabic. "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."

Now, it's no secret that I'm no fan of our current President. I think some of the things he's done are criminal, under that "piece of paper" the rest of us call The Constitution. But, what's a little matter of Constitutionality these days? Apparently, when gauging the reaction of my fellow Americans, not much.

Anyway, the shoes, back to the shoes. I understand that in Iraq, throwing a shoe at someone is the lowest possible insult you can muster. Since I'm not an Iraqi, and therefore don't really see it in that context, this whole shoe throwing incident really just puts it all into perspective. Here is a guy so angry, so fed up, so frustrated, but still with the sanity, integrity and intelligence enough to not go out and do something really insane (like blow something up), he turns to his only means of expressing that anger and frustration, throwing his shoes. A shoe, at worst might cause a black eye or a light abrasion. Though I would guess some of the people who worship at the vapid altar of High Fashion, might have some deadly heels in their possession, that's why they're called "spike" heels. But even outside of the context in which Iraqi's understand it to be a terrible insult, it certainly does express a whole lot.

I've got to tell you, I love this. Throwing a shoe. It's just random and weird enough to really fit the insanity of what the last eight years have been as an American in the minority of dissent. Hell, even in just the last few months a number of people I know have been laid off, have been cut from full time to part time, are in foreclosure, and there are even more who are facing the same in the coming months should the economy not miraculously jump back to health.

Where's Palin with her faith healing, witch hunting pastor when the economy is in need of a miracle? He got her onto the ticket as vice presidential candidate, and considering what we now know about Sarah Palin, it really was a miracle. So, where's she hiding this little miracle man? I think he's working his special magic on Congress. Is she hiding him in some Senator or Representatives closet. The banking industry has gotten a miracle in the form of a seven hundred billion dollar bailout, with little to no oversight or restriction as to how that taxpayer money would be used. Citigroup, in their infinite financial wisdom is using it to buy naming rights on the new stadium for the Mets in New York (and they were recipients of two different infusions of federal bailout money). And let's not forget they recently acquired the naming rights for the Rose Bowl this year as well. So, after you've lost your job and your home and are sitting in a bar or homeless shelter watching the Mets or the Rose Bowl and wondering why Congress didn't make their first order of business to sure up the crumbling housing market and making sure Americans weren't losing homes and jobs, you can feel at ease that you no matter job nor home, you will have your Mets and your Rose Bowl. But, if you had a subprime loan with Citigroup, you know that even after two different bailouts, they wouldn't renegotiate loans to keep people in their homes. Now you know why, the Mets needed a name for their field and the Rose Bowl needed a sponsor. Apparently these things are much more important than Americans having homes to live in. But, if you listen to what people are saying, these international conglomerates with no loyalty to anyone but their pocket books and their gambling addict share holders aren't at all responsible. The problem really is the Community Reinvestment Act. Yes, making sure low income citizens have a chance to buy a home, this is the real problem.

The American auto industry (which directly or indirectly effects one in ten jobs in the US) is in shambles, and heading toward utter destruction, and in seeking their bailout, were completely foiled by anti-union sentiment in the Republican party. Another half a million people out of a job? Unemployment rate moving steadily toward ten percent? It's just fine so long as those unions get theirs. I'm really here nor there on unions, there are good and bad aspects to them for ordinary people, so I'm not inclined to side with unions on a preconceived basis. Right now though, I just don't really think we can afford to play around with the possibility of that number of people becoming unemployed by either a collapse or bankruptcy in the auto industry. Maybe it's just me, but I like it when there are lots of people working, and not many people unemployed. Somehow, I just think that's good for the economy, and the people, but you know, I'm a little crazy.

So, if you're as fed up, frustrated and angry with your government as I am, I have a proposal for you. Shoes, shoes, and more shoes. Go to the local office of your congressional officials and throw shoes, leave shoes on the door step, send them shoes in the mail. You can get shoes pretty cheap, go check you local thrift store, because it doesn't matter what size the shoe is. You can even go to Target or something and get some cheap slippers or flip flops or sandals or something, and send shoes, throw shoes, and put shoes on their door steps. Shoes. Flood congress with shoes. The stinkier the better.

{Thoughts From A Not Entirely Deceased} Christmas Cheer.

2007-12-23T12:04:00.000-08:00

Lately, I've been talking to some other Not Entirely Deceased Americans (I was informed recently that zombie is an offensive term, and this amuses me to no end. I'm dead, what else do I have to be offended about?), and I found an overwhelming majority of us really enjoy Christmas. We really couldn't care any less about the whole gift giving, gift receiving, shopping thing though. Most of us have at some point or another since our rebirth (I was also informed recently that talking about becoming a Not Entirely Deceased American in terms of having died really promotes a negative self perception, hence the term, rebirth), realized that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of the man who would one day become the worlds favorite Undead. Easter seems to be the only holiday Undead Americans really enjoy more, as of course it marks the rebirthday of our most famous and effective emissary.

It was only recently, with the beginning of the whole holiday season that I realized the entire Christian world worships an undead person. I'm really not sure what else you can possibly call the man. He did die. He did rise from the grave. These are the hallmarks of being an undead person. Not all of us actually rise from the grave. I can't imagine what that experience would be like. It was strange enough waking up naked on coroners table. At least I wasn't in some box, buried six feet in the earth. It doesn't immediately dawn on you that you are not entirely deceased. It takes a little while to figure it out. It takes some a day or two, and others find out as soon as they walk in the door trying to tell their families that they're ok (they always assume someone must be looking for them because they've been kidnapped or something). They are not usually received very well. I can only imagine that going through burying a relative or loved one who shows up on the doorstep a few days later would be somewhat traumatic, to say the least. The ones who've actually been buried and then come back, well, they're a little jumpy and suspicious. Then again, some of them are real assholes and somebody was probably wasting no time trying to get them in the ground. They probably should be jumpy and suspicious.

Anyway, I've been thinking about converting to Christianity. Before my rebirth, I wasn't particularly a fan of religion. But since, I've come to believe that Christianity had to have been started by a Not Entirely Deceased person. I mean think about it, this is my flesh for you to eat, this is my blood for you to drink, healing lepers, all of that stuff. Leprosy isn't a problem when you're dead. It's amazing it never dawned on me. I think the whole thing is actually for the Not Entirely Deceased, and all of you warm bloods got hold of it and screwed it all up. This is not surprising considering the degree to which you screw most things up. But this one thing, just this thing seems to have been completely put together with us deaders in mind, and you screwed it all up. Fuck you very much.

I'm not exactly sure of the nature of difference between all the varieties of Christianity. I've never really much cared. They were all just this side of barking at the moon as far as I was concerned. Looking at the conduct of so many who consider themselves religious, you can't really deny this assessment. That is, until you consider the possibility that all of these warm bloods have been running around trying to fit into something which was never meant for them in the first place. It was meant for us. We're the ones who know all about rising from the dead. You people could not possibly understand the pain of it. In other words, we can probably identify with Jesus better than you sorry fools can anyway. We know the pain of dying. We know the confusion and disorientation of waking up, dead. Maybe that's where we come from in the first place. Maybe all of you loonies running around screaming about being the chosen ones have missed the point entirely. Think about it, promises of everlasting life? We've got it. Promises of never having to fear pain or death anymore? We've got it. Yeah, I'm pretty far on my way to becoming positive we're the ones who've been chosen by God, and you poor suckers have to suffer the rest of your lives with the question of whether or not you're going to make it to the Not Entirely Deceased category. Considering the absolutely flawless job you've done with making a mockery of human history, I say, "Suffer bitches. Suffer."

I believe it is my calling to become the first Bishop of the Church of the Not Entirely Deceased. I'm thinking about a trip to Rome too. I've got to see the Pope, and get as close as I can. I've got to find out for myself whether or not he's one of us. I'm thinking there's a good possibility.

I wonder if there's some kind of super secret Order of the Not Entirely Deceased. Maybe that's what the real Illuminati is, and all of those fools running around whispering to each other about some kind of religious conspiracy are right about the super secret thing, but have missed the rest of it in total. Dan Brown would look like a real jack ass then wouldn't he? Well, maybe no one would ever have that horrific piece of shit, which can only be called a film in the loosest sense, perpetrated on their person again. Tom Hanks is definitely not one of us. No self respecting Not Entirely Deceased would have gone anywhere near that shit box. Sorry Tom, maybe someday though. If some secret order does exist, it would be pretty cool to be able to become some kind of zombie soldier for God. I haven't got anything else to do, and I seem to have all the time in the world to do not much of anything. I still go to work, but I'm not sure how long that's going to last. People are going to start wondering what's going on at some point. I've been claiming a skin disorder, but they're going to realize at some point that I've put no insurance claim in for doctors visits. I wonder if I'd get to eat God's enemies, and whether they'd give me indigestion. Gas problems seem to be pretty common among the Not Entirely Deceased as well.

Being a zombie soldier in the army of God would certainly give new meaning to the term "conversion" also. I mean, do I get to just go out and bite people who I think need to be saved? It could be fun. It could also end up with the villagers storming my building with torches and pitchforks too. I'm going to have to talk to some of the others about this. Some of them have been dead... Not Entirely Deceased longer than I have and they've got more experience with staying under the radar.

On a good note, on of my new Not Entirely Deceased friends brought me a turkey for Christmas. It was a really nice gesture, and I appreciate it, but the thing stinks to high heaven and it keeps shitting all over the place. I don't think I can wait for Christmas. I think I'm going to chow down on that big bastard tonight. I've found I have a real taste for feathers. They're kind of like whip cream for the Not Entirely Dead. They're all light and no substance tasty. Bird feet are kind of like what I remember beef jerky being like, and they're good to have around for that afternoon craving. He's got some good sized feet on him too, they may last a good while.

So, merry Christmas to all of you. And remember when you sit down to your Christmas dinner with your families that you're celebrating the birth of the man who became the most famous zombie in history, and that you are far inferior to those chosen ones whom he died and was resurrected specifically for. Meaning, US and NOT YOU!

{Thoughts From A Not Entirely Deceased} Hollywood.

2007-12-13T06:15:00.000-08:00

Hollywood. Hollywood sucks. Do you know why Hollywood sucks? They perpetrate all kinds of ridiculous lies and fairy tales on people, constantly. You would think that occasionally, just occasionally, they'd want to try and make a film which was based in some kind of normal reality. But no, not these piss swishers. Nothing but lies, lies, and lies dressed up as feel good messages.

Take all these god damned love stories they make. Are you fucking kidding me? You must have to be estrogen driven in order to appreciate this crap. Let's face it guys, if you're the biggest geek on the block, the hot girl isn't going to all of a sudden lose interest in her own completely superficial existence and find the splendor that is you. And no, that geeky girl who is actually superfine under her insecure exterior is not going to end up loving the fact that you've brought out the beauty in her either. She's going to figure out she is actually hot, and she's going to start fucking her way through the football team. My friends and fellow geeks, it just doesn't work that way in real life. There is no Elizabeth Shue for Nicholas Cage's pathetic drunken ass either. So, if you're betting on the whole bad boy, live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse thing, you're kidding yourself. I'll give it to you, you might catch some fine snatch here and there until you're about twenty-one, and then they're going to get tired of your stupid ass. Unless, you get one of those really fine chicks who's completely and totally fucking bonkers. Think Fatal Attraction, The Crush, or Play Misty For Me, and you're just about there, except they rarely try to kill you in real life. Women are much more cruel than that, they want you alive so they can torture you for the rest of your natural life. If you're Sleepless in Seattle, you'd better catch on to Spankwire, fast, because calling some radio show and pouring out your heart over your dead wife only makes you cute to women who spend an inordinate amount of time looking through Pathologist Quarterly. But, I guess if that's you're thing, then hey, why not? The only Notebook we're ever going to get is either the one we write our own pathetically obsessed lives down in or the ones they write in about how incredibly pathetic we are for obsessing over them. I'm in Richmond VA, and the only way you're getting to Pretty Woman through a hooker here is if you're so drunk, coked up, or meth melted you can't really tell the difference between a pretty woman and a pretty handsome she male anyway. Just let it go guys. Let the dream die, for all of our sakes.

Be happy. Make comic books, design computer games, read books, write books, do science projects (or what ever the hell it is you science geeks do), do math problems, whatever your thing is. Later on in life, you'll be happier for it. You'll go further. The blond hottie down the street who says shit like, "Learning is hard," is going to end up popping out five ungrateful, vicious little puppies, her tits are going to drop, her ass is going to sag, and no amount of plastic surgery can save the pitiful creature which is a former prom queen who refuses to grow old gracefully. You, you'll probably get some fat corporate job with a bunch of other geeks like you, land a fat paycheck, vacation in the Bahamas, and live it up as you get older. You could be the next Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Quentin Tarantino, Ben Harper, Jeff Tweedy, Martin Scorcese, Ray Bradbury, Stephen King. George Lucas or Steven Spielberg or something. These are all really hard core geeks who made it big, on their particular brand of geek. Then you'll get a real shot at the twenty-year old who's only interested in fast cars and shiny things, and it'll be ok, because you'll only be interested in her perky little tits and her tightly wound ass. Have no fear, age is the great equalizer.

Now let's be fair here. Love is not the only thing Hollywood tends to lie about. There are lots of cute little ideas and fantasies they drop on the poor unsuspecting, media addled minds of Americans. There's that whole, good triumphs over evil thing. You know what I'm talking about. The Happy Ending. And no, I'm not talking about the Happy Ending at the Vietnamese Massage parlor either. I know it's tough, but for a little while, let's think about something other than sex. I have faith in you, you can do it. The good guys don't always win in the end. They end up being the worker bees to all of you pissed off geeks who become career obsessed corporate robots. They don't end up leading revolts which topple The Man. They don't end up using the force and destroying the Death Star. They end up using a jack hammer and keeping your shit flowing down hill by taking care of the sewage lines. They don't end up over turning the death sentence for that really innocent man. They end up as public defenders, working eighty hours a week to keep drug dealers who make more money in three days than they do in a year, out of jail. Sometimes, they do actually end up being war heroes, I'll give Hollywood that. War heroes are usually regular people who do incredible things. But, in today's day and age they then go on to be exploited and humiliated by the media and the politicians. It's good for ratings, both television and approval.

Then you've got your horror movies. Every one's dying everywhere, and instead of getting the fuck out of the camp, the town, the house, whatever, they go looking for an answer. The answer comes most often at the end of some very sharp object. This is probably some kind of perverse pleasure for the particular kind of geek who is obsessed with horror films though, because it's usually some big titted, bubble brained co-ed (like the one down the block who learning is so hard for). It's got to be some kind of fulfilment. I'm not so particular, I find all manner of people fucking offensive and annoying, so I certainly enjoy the carnage. Anyway, it's either the madman on the loose or the monster in the closet and every one's got to figure it out. Figure it out? Why? Run. Get the fuck out of there. If nobody believes there's a mad man trying to cut you to pieces, leave town, forever. Never come back. And how on God's earth do none of these people never know the killer isn't dead? How is it that these people all live in a universe in which horror films do not exist? If you actually are the one to knock him out or kill him, chop his fucking head off. Use a butter knife if you have to, but cut that damned head off, because you're not going to make it through the first reel in the sequel.

Then there is my absolute favorite, zombie films. Zombies, always portrayed as some kind of mindless, bloodthirsty creatures either running or trudging about trying to eat people. In the case of the slow zombie, how the fuck do you not get away from the zombie? How are you not able to hit directly in the head something moving at the speed of your great grandmother after a colonoscopy? I have never been able to understand this. This is what makes me quite sure we aren't teaching enough military history in our schools. Cover a field, a parking lot, any open space with some flammable liquid and wait for the slow stupid bastards to start walking towards you. Light it up, and bang! You've just wasted at least twenty zombies, even if you're on the unlucky side. Put down your baseball bat and pick up a Molotov Cocktail. You can get at least three zombies. The characters in zombie movies are always trying to find a "safe place", which also happens to have no way out, and even if it does, can easily be surrounded. Fuck that. Take the fight to them. Get your car, run as many of the horror genres Jerry's Kids down as you possibly can.

Anyway, I can go on forever about that one. On to the fast zombie, lately popular. If for some reason, you can not hear some thumping, screaming mess of what used to be a human being running full speed in your direction, in complete and total mayhem mode, you're probably doing the future generations a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool anyway. All you need is about fifteen cases of beer, twenty rednecks, then break into the local gun store for ammo, and find a high vantage point. There are red neck beer bellies all over this country who own enough firepower to assault a small nation. Put them to work. They're used to sitting in trees and watching for quick but stupid prey, so put them in a third floor office with a view of the street. Put them on a roof. Hell, fill up the back of a pick up truck with them and drive them around while they pop off on the unsuspecting walking dead (some of them probably have a very good idea how this works as their grandfathers have told the tales of the old days when they Klan ruled the land. They'd probably be quite happy to get a chance to carry on the heritage. Though it might take a few of their friends and family to be ripped to pieces before they get the idea that you have to kill all of the dead people. Most of them do turn white after a while. Romero did get that part right.) You could also just tell everyone it's the latest plot by terrorists to take away our freedoms, and then they'll just let the government handle it all (though you may want to keep an eye on how exactly the government starts to define zombie, or you may become one).

Hollywood did get remarkably close on one occasion. If you haven't seen the film An American Werewolf in London, you're really screwing the pooch. Yes, the pun was intended, I couldn't help it. In the film, two college age Americans are backpacking across Europe, they are attacked on the Moors by a vicious canine creature (kind of like what will someday be popping out of the blond your lusting after). One is killed, the other survives. The survivor begins seeing his dead friend, in different states of decay. His friend though, is still for all intensive purposes, much the same guy dead that he was alive. He's not some lumbering, Liberty University student wannabe. He's the same guy, just dead, and starting to rot. Well, that's what zombies are really like. The rate of decay in An American Werewolf in London was somewhat advanced, but I can give that to John Landis as gore is good for ticket sales and they got the rest of it right. Zombies aren't crazed maniacs running the streets trying to tear apart anyone they see either. They're just trying to get by, that's all. Some of us are trying to figure out what happened, how we died, and all of us want to know why we came back or how we came back for that matter. But all in all, zombies are just like you.

There are a few differences. We're not really interested in dining out. Sushi's not too bad, and steak houses are ok, if they are willing to hand over the really rare cut. All the nutrients get cooked out otherwise. It tastes terrible. I'm not sure how I ever used to eat the hard cooked crap you all eat. All I smell is roasting flesh. Not pleasant to the zombie palate. We're more hunter gatherers really.

If you're a newly dead, start looking around the more affluent neighborhoods. This country loves it's animals, and feeds them well. You can eat a Great Dane for three days. A Saint Bernard can last as long as seven days if you're frugal. I've heard of the occasional horse, but the logistics of it are too much for me, so I can't really tell you how to go about that. If you live in or near a city, there are plenty of stray cats around, and they're good for a nights morsel. Rats can always be dug up too, but they're a little on the gamy side. I'm considering moving out to the country and raising pigs and chickens. I figure it will solve many problems. I'm spending a fortune in make up right now. I'm also starting to worry that some one's going to catch on to my unusual tastes and call the police. I'm not sure how they would react when they take me for my prison physical and find that I'm dead. Not well I'm sure. I could spend the next fifty years being autopsied while I'm still alive. Just because I'm a zombie doesn't mean I don't have feeling. That shit would hurt.

Anyway, this is the first official blog. I'm going for it and breaking the silence. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm a zombie and I'm damned proud. It's not much different than when I was alive. I go to work, I come home, I eat, I sleep (I'm not going to get into the bathroom stuff just now, people aren't ready for that. I sure as hell wasn't). I've even been able to bag a few of those hot women I'd have been too afraid to talk to before. I mean, when you're dead, a little rejection is nothing. For a little while there it was great. Rigor mortis does wonders for your sexual reputation. It doesn't last though, and women get a little nervous when you're in bed and you whip out a tazer. Even if you promise your only using it on yourself. Some of them were not really into the electric blanket in the summer either, but hell, so what. I might be dead, but at least I'm still above ground and having fun.