Amusement

A conversation with a fellow Friend, poking fun at a few well-deserved targets.
_________

I've dreamed up some folk-song lyrics for lefties:

(strum a guitar and sing:)

strum

When humankind is truly free/

everyone will agree with me.

(Beautiful!)

Brother, you can come around our commune and eat our food anytime you want to. Keep feeding each other, children!

Except then everyone complains

"I only eat organic WILD rice!"

"This is organic WHITE rice."

*continues singing*

"Everyone will believe as I do one day."

It's an authoritarian view, but an unconscious one. Mistaken for liberatory and peace-y justice-y.

And we all do it sometimes.

Social justice. I know better so you don't have to.

Let me set you free, people!

Why don't you let me set you free?

What's the matter with you?

Why are you opposing your own liberation?

… And at this point, we sound exactly like US soldiers in Iraq

On the ground, Ahmed! We're liberating your country!

________

See, this is what we call a rationalization, children.

People believe in a concept called "free will"

Can you say Rationalization?

Sure! I knew you could.

But you notice that there's a word there next to "will"

"free"

as in, "you get to decide for yourself what to believe"

and the government can't make you believe otherwise.

now, they try, but

oh, you're a bit too young for THAT discussion.

remember, Rationalization.

good.

I knew you could.

A Quick One, While I'm Away

Blessings in the Most Unexpected of Places

I don't have to tell you fellow bloggers out there that the internet often brings out the worst in people. Or, as a good friend of mine often says, the internet magnifies douchitude. So the times when it brings out the absolute best in people remind me of the whole reason why we spend the time online to reach out to people we will likely never meet in reality.

Yesterday I got a very moving comment left about one of my performance videos. I include it below.

"My brother, who was only 44 and had a beautiful wife and two teenagers, passed last week and I can not tell you how much this song has helped me. Thank you, buddy. Thank you so much."

I was very touched and made a point to leave this anonymous person a personal reply.

In my inbox this morning was an even lengthier reply.

______________

Kevin, THANK YOU. Our family is devastated.

I found you on YouTube when I watched the season finale of "Big Love" on HBO because they played the song you sang in that last episode and my parents and I would always watch that show and then I would call them and we would talk about it afterward. Anyways, I kept playing that last episode because I really liked that song but I had no clue who sang it so I YouTubed it and several people had sang it but I just felt like you were looking me right in the eyes when you sang it and I felt blessed. Stupid, I know, but I watch your version of that song over and over and over again and it helps. This is a really difficult time for me and for my family and you have made it a bit easier. I appreciate you more than I can express in words and if I ever met you in person, I would hug you tight.

Thank you, Kevin. You help more than I can express.
_________________

I'm really not sure what else to say. But I will include my performance of the song in any case.

Movie Review: I Am Curious (Yellow)

Though it is known primarily to film historians and art house cinephiles these days, Swedish director Vilgot Sjöman's controversial I Am Curious was the United States' top grossing foreign film from its 1967 opening until the late 1990's. Taking in over twenty million dollars at the box office, its success is often explained by way of its then-shocking graphic sex scenes. A modern audience has come to expect and desire nudity in feature films and the obligatory cottage industry to perpetuate that craving has sprung up around it. There was a time, however, in the not-that-long-ago past where nudity in film was meant to make a statement. Unsurprisingly, today's viewers won't find much in I Am Curious tremendously shocking, though even today full-frontal male nudity and unsimulated oral sex are still largely forbidden in Hollywood. Over forty years after its release, the movie retains an NC-17 rating as a result of this.

Specifically because of the sex, the master print of the film was seized by U.S. Customs Agents the moment it reached American shores. A protracted obscenity trial resulted between the film distributors and the U.S. Government, which was eventually taken all the way to the Supreme Court. The High Court ruled affirmed the decision of the prior Circuit Court which ruled that it was not obscene, and decreed that it could be shown in all states that had not taken a hard stance against its viewing. Only Maryland's Board of Censors dug in their heels and refused under any circumstances to allow it to be shown in their state. The other 49 states in the Union, however, registered no objections. The amount of media attention the film received for nearly a year before it was finally shown before an audience created a publicity sensation the film distributors could have never dreamed of producing themselves.

The irony, of course, was that most casual viewers decided to attend a showing specifically for the sex, completely disregarding the political, social, and moral commentary that comprised the other 80% of the film. The author Upton Sinclair, a committed socialist, experienced the same phenomenon upon publication of his famous book The Jungle. "I aimed for America's heart," he lamented, "but instead hit it in the stomach." Without meaning to, Sjöman's film made pornographic movies briefly quite popular with the average moviegoer, coalescing in the success of the famous XXX feature Deep Throat. The unexpected success of I Am Curious drove many art house cinemas out of the business of showing foreign language or experimental film. Many were forced to switch completely to XXX pornographic films to stay afloat. This meant that, quite unjustly, many worthy art house and foreign films went completely unnoticed by audiences for several years.

I Am Curious was broken down into two separate films: one yellow, one blue. Yellow and blue are the colors of the Swedish flag. Both have dated considerably over the years. They are quite indicative of the prevailing winds of the decade of their creation---by turns daring, self-indulgent, wildly experimental, needlessly undisciplined, engaging, graphic, unrestrained, and completely unfocused. The audience is rarely provided enough exposition and linear transition between passages to produce a desperately needed kind of narrative cohesion. As it is, the films could be considered without much of a plot or an anchor and the final result is perplexing and occasionally dull. The director, looking like either a beat poet or an Amish bible salesman, inserts himself periodically into the action but even his presence doesn't overcome the movie's tragic flaws. Sjöman was himself a disciple of fellow Swede Ingmar Bergman, but lacked his idol's talent and command of the discipline, which produced an amateurish, sloppy product.

Sjöman's desire in making the movie was ostensibly to blur the lines between fantasy and reality. Believing that the more orthodox approach was constraining and furthermore wishing to embrace the impulse of the moment rather than the usual obsessive pre-planning, he allowed his actors and actresses to freely improvise and instead of giving much in the way of direction, primarily sat back and let the cameras roll. Filming got underway without a shooting script, or much of an idea where the picture was heading. It shows. Some sequences are presented in conventional fashion, the familiar cinematic conceit of actors and actresses playing a part, performing them in front of a camera. Other sequences attempt to show the back story behind the making of the film itself---the players as human beings with real feelings and emotions, merely working a job. Nowadays, this kind of film-within-a-film dynamic has been utilized so many times that it borders on cliche. In its time, however, I Am Curious was one of the first to attempt to combine the genres of documentary with feature film.

Tragedy and Community

A good friend of mine wrote this homily on her blog, discussing the fallout of the University of Georgia professor who on Saturday shot to death his wife and two other men. To provide a bit of needed backstory, she is a current Athens resident and an Athens native. What I couldn't help but notice while reading this compelling account was how closely tied she is emotionally to the city itself. Her first person account describes a tight-knit community in which all feel a part of something larger than themselves. It is on that note that I include below what she wrote in totality.
__________

I sat on my front porch tonight and listened to the sounds of my neighborhood. It doesn't sound any different, but something feels changed. I sat here just a few days ago and wondered at the verdant trees and bright blue sky, grateful for the arrival of spring, and all the freshness and beauty it brings.

I can't help but ponder why. Surely the act itself is irrational. A person with any bit of rational thought would surely have to reason out doing such a thing. And yet, if one were to reason it out, how would it have come to happen that way? Surely you wouldn't do it in public, in front of your community. He was together enough to leave the children with friends who would take care of them, and yet so far gone that he'd killed their mother while they sat in the car.

I wonder what it means for me, personally. It means more than just a day of hysteria and helicopters flying overhead. I didn't know anyone involved at this theatre only a few blocks away, which means I haven't offered myself as a volunteer with the theatre community here, as I'd always planned to after college. I donated once or twice when I was doing better financially, but I rarely bothered myself enough to even attend shows. It means more security everywhere. I developed a healthy appreciation for our police force, and especially the radio operators, as I listened to them on the scanner. On a day when the force was already heavily taxed, they were dealing with a situation they hope to only have to plan for, not ever deal with. Voices were strained, but everyone on the scanner kept their cool enough to be able to act rationally as they were needed. How odd, on a day of such tragedy, to hear of dealing with loud party complaints and disorderly drunks. Apologies to my liberal nature, but it means that my feelings on gun laws have been cemented. With an armed killer in the neighborhood, it was beyond reassuring to know that should it come our way, we wouldn't be in a gun fight carrying only a knife.

For my community, it means so many things. A city budget, already stretched thin, now surely in the red. Important members of the arts community, the small but extant and active theatre

It's trust, I think. We trust our neighbors less tonight. You trust that the friendly professor with two children next door, or the single mother, or the group of rowdy but pleasant college kids, or the aging grandmother, are not the kind to go and do something of this magnitude to other members of your community. You trust that the people you see every day are just normal folks like yourselves. And maybe that's really the rub--if this was just someone like ourselves, how did they come to this point? What snapped? What changed inside their mind to make doing something like this seem actionable? That trust we have, that our neighborhood is not the sort of place where this happens, that our neighbors are incapable of this--has been eroded.

I don't know how that is fixed. I can only hope that as Athens has done before, it will find a way to turn its collective good will and caring into something that will whittle away at the shock and pain we all feel. I have no doubt that we are capable of doing so. community, gone. 3 more tragic deaths in a year that has already, in only April, seen too many. It's neighbors--that only recently when snow fell and power lines came down, came out on the porch and shared candles, food, and warmth--its neighbors who are more guarded, less trustful.

________

This is something I have never felt before in my own life. No matter where I live, I'm just someone who happens to take up space next to someone else who takes up space. I grew up in a suburb where we faintly knew our neighbors, and only interacted with them if there was a problem brewing involving something like unruly pets or large trees which needed to be cut down to avoid broaching someone else's property line. Aside from that, we lived very different, very isolated, very separate lives which no one questioned and no one sought to reform.

In reading this account, I envy that kind of closeness she has, especially so when it is compromised by violence and unwarranted tragedy. But, all the same, I often wonder if true community is something I could ever learn to embrace if at some point I came across it in my life. Old habits are hard to break. I'm not sure it would be easy for me to reach out to my neighbors or engage them in small talk.

Readers, have you ever experienced true community in your own lives? If so, would you mind sharing a story or two?

Quote of the Week

*The owner of this blog wishes to note that he does not hold the same opinion as the speaker of this week's quote, but rather was struck by how unusual the sentiment was and also by how unexpected was the messenger in which it arrived.

Thanks,

Management.



Women’s Liberation is just a lot of foolishness. It’s the men who are discriminated against. They can’t bear children. And no one’s likely to do anything about that.- Golda Meir

Coda

To bring the whole male privilege discussion to a proper close, I thought I might add a few words in an effort to neatly wrap up what has been said.

Gender is a powerful force. Before there was any other strict, unyielding delineation separating human beings from each other like race, religion, or ethnicity, there was gender. This is why gender equality has proven to be such an elusive goal. For as long as humans have roamed the earth, there have been two sexes. Men are men. Women are women. Their ways are different. Their roles are different. Their perspectives are different. Their experiences are different. The ways both internally perceive the same external situation are entirely different. None of this should come as that much of a surprise. This is merely a matter of common sense and simple biology.

While looking over the last two posts, I notice that my male readers shared the perspective I advanced, while my female readers took a contrary view. Perhaps that in and of itself isn't very surprising, since I am also a man. Still, I've never wanted to perpetuate the Stalemate Between the Sexes, since it has always been my belief that pitched conflict of this kind never leads to any satisfactory resolution. By the end, the fault lines often exist in much the same ways as they did before and both sides continue to stare across a large divide at each other as though the verbal jousting accomplished nary a thing.

It is also unfortunate to me to ponder how much gender conflict and power dynamics influence our points of view. We see often see ourselves first as our gender, and last as human beings. Furthermore, our own personal opinion of gender is shaped often by negative past experiences. Many are so awful and traumatic that they completely cloud the way we respond to other people of our own or an opposite gender, those whom they themselves did nothing at all to create the negative impressions we hold. If there were any way to push past our own conditioning, I wish we could manage it for the sake of the greater good.

We wage struggles like these all the time in the sake of progress, evolution, or reform. Some state that gender inequality is the default primordial state of human existence and that as such, it will always exist. Though I disagree strongly with the assumption, I will mention again how pervasive and powerful gender bias and gender identity are in the human mind, since both create artificial boundaries between men and women. We are a strange combination of the rational and the instinctual, and the unskillful interface between these two vital parts of us often creates tremendous problems. Until we can fully embrace the civilized impulse, we'll always be trapped bouncing back and forth between different worlds.

Saturday Video

And in the beginning, Britpop sounded like this.

Pragmatism Might Be A Better Approach

This is Part Two of yesterday's post.

I do consider myself an activist. I also consider myself a Feminist. But I also understand the concept of pragmatism and how it must be included if success is ever to be reached. To wit, while it might seem necessary to constantly harp upon the role of male privilege in modern life, whether visible or invisible, I know that many men will take offense to that tactic. It's human nature. Few people are going to respond positively to any group or movement that heaps blame upon a massive segment of the population by stating specifically that they benefit from some kind of inborn advantage. While stating it might be completely justified and completely true, one wonders whether the cost of abject honesty is worth the membership needed to make goals a reality.

To wit, I believe in the ideals and goals of Feminism. As I said yesterday, my mother is a Feminist herself and I was raised to believe in the equality of the sexes. I also know that more men would join and lend their talents if they didn't feel like, upon entrance, that they wore a bull's eye by default. The way to defeat sexism in its multifarious permutations is to seek the input of male allies. I promise that they are just as weary of men behaving badly as women are. Furthermore, they understand what it is like to be summarily dismissed as chauvinistic due to the ravages of prior bad experiences with offensive men.

Problems with many identity groups like feminists occurs when their rhetoric renders them self-isolating and extremely limiting in their greater impact on society. After a while, they end up being exercises in preaching to the choir. A little choir practice now and again is a good thing, but too much of doesn't really move the dialog forward. The message is stuck in time. This is why when I, as a male, express feminist points of view or mention feminist scholars, many women are surprised why any male would ever be interested in such a thing. They often find it appealing that I would have gone to the trouble to learn about the history of the movement, but often hand in hand with that notion is that most men would automatically feel so threatened by the idea of a strong, opinionated woman in any context that they wouldn't make much of any effort to dig deeper. This may have been true in another time with a different generation of men, but it's far less the case in this day and age. Men don't feel threatened by smart, empowered women. Men feel threatened by any movement which labels them automatically part of the problem from the moment they leave the womb.

For a similar example, I recall the Civil Rights Movement as practiced by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers. If one is to be fair, one must acknowledge the many white liberals who lent their political clout, money, time, and effort to the movement. Though most preferred to take an advisory position far out of the public eye, one cannot deny their existence or their impact on the overall success of the movement as a whole. I can't ever recall Dr. King mentioning that all whites were part of the problem or that every white person benefited from the color of their skin from birth. Both statements are likely true to some degree, but the pragmatic King knew that stating them in a public forum or incorporating them into the goals of the Movement would be counter-productive at best. Compare this to the militancy, separatism, and hatred of whites practiced by the Black Panthers, or by Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam as voiced by Malcolm X. Though Malcolm X after his conversion experience in Mecca softened to the idea of incorporating white support, he also stated that whites could help but could not join.

Let me reiterate that I want Feminism to succeed. I want the Equal Rights Amendment to be passed. I want to see complete parity in pay for men and women. But I know that so long as the current tact is maintained, we will still be fighting for these same reforms years from now and wondering why they've never come to pass.

Or, To Put It Another Way

Then Peter came to him and asked, "Sir, how often should I forgive a brother who sins against me? Seven times?"

"No!" Jesus replied, "seventy times seven!

The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date. In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him $10,000,000! He couldn't pay, so the king ordered him sold for the debt, also his wife and children and everything he had.

But the man fell down before the king, his face in the dust, and said, 'Oh, sir, be patient with me and I will pay it all.'

Then the king was filled with pity for him and released him and forgave his debt. But when the man left the king, he went to a man who owed him $2,000 and grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment. The man fell down before him and begged to give him a little time.

'Be patient and I will pay it, ' he pled.

But his creditor wouldn't wait. He had the man arrested and jailed until the debt would be paid in full. Then the man's friends went before the king and told him what had happened. And the king called before him the man he had forgiven and said,

'You evil-hearted wretch! Here I forgave you all that tremendous debt, just because you asked me to--should you have mercy on others, just as I had mercy on you?'

Then the angry king sent the man to the torture chamber until he had paid every last penny due. So shall my heavenly Father do to you if you refuse to truly forgive your brothers.

Something I'd Like to See Feminism Address

I agree with the commentary advanced by the author of this book excerpt. Ms. Valenti is a thoughtful, articulate young woman with much to say. She is also, scarily enough, my age. I have nothing of note to add to the link provided other than to concur that I too believe that the ideal of female sexual purity is a social construct that does far more harm than good. It's a concept I have simply never understood, since I take a practical eye towards virginity. It reminds me of clumsy, awkward sex among two teenagers barely out of puberty, not some desired state, itself a romanticized conception based on wishful thinking.

Valenti is the founder of a third-wave feminist site called Feministing that showcases a variety of different feminist-related content and commentary. I have had problems not with the daily posts themselves or their writers, but I have taken some issue with a few regular visitors to the site who leave frequent comments. It annoys me when certain women make assumptions that I benefit from unconscious male privilege by my very being and, as a result, somehow the deck is stacked in my favor from the beginning. For men who want to be allies in the movement itself, it's tough to not interpret this to mean that we're automatically a part of the problem from the outset. What some feminists simply don't understand is that we find the conduct of many men equally as off-putting and resent being summarily lumped into the same category as the offenders.

My mother is a feminist. Much to the chagrin of my conservative father, she espoused a variety of strong opinions around the house when I was growing up. Cheerleaders, for example, were routinely criticized for being air headed and stupid, when they should be aspiring instead to be educated and articulate. Most of these beliefs I agreed with on principle and eagerly incorporated them into my own system of values. However, what always got under my skin were the times when my mother uttered a phrase that often seemed to sum up her attitude towards masculinity as a whole. If a prominent male figure was ensnared in a sex scandal or called to the carpet for letting his hormones get the better of him, Mom would quite cavalierly diagnose the situation by saying simply, Men are weak.

The implication was that a woman would never find herself in such a situation. What was further implied in that statement was a kind of smug, self-righteousness which indicated that although men thought they were in control and more powerful than women in every situation, they were secretly weaker than females. The statement might say more about my mother than feminism itself, but it's a viewpoint that I have discovered isn't strictly relegated to my mother. To be fair, I have also known women who have cheated on their significant others or have acted foolishly in sexual situations in which they themselves were purely at fault. Philandering is hardly a male problem.

If I take offense to anything addressed by feminism it's that it tacitly assumes, much like my mother, that men behave badly based on willful ignorance or some kind of deficit of moral fiber. As this line of thinking goes, these men know better and choose to act like chauvinist pigs or impulsive users. It has been my experience that painting all men with a broad brush isn't particularly fair, just as it is unfair to paint all women with the same broad brush. Among some men, I do see a kind of unapologetic misogyny, but there are also many men who genuinely make an attempt to respect women and treat them with common decency.

Furthermore, summarily dismissing the offensive male might be an exercise in catharsis or self-satisfied condemnation, but I would recommend instead digging deeper into the past of those with whom we disagree. That is, of course, if understanding is that which we desire. Confronting such factors as to whether the offending male grew up with beneficial male role models, taking into account the father's influence, or discerning whether or not a father was even present at all during childhood I think are fairer ways to form an well-reasoned opinion. This is not to say that I recommend letting the behavior or conduct of offenders go unchallenged, merely to suggest that to write off a male or all men without taking into account the whole story is not especially helpful to the cause of feminism itself or to one's own method of addressing the problems of gender inequality. Our own past shapes our present, regardless of what our gender might be. Looking within ourselves and examining the variety of elements that have shaped how we respond to the opposite gender may very well be a beneficial exercise for each of us, rather than lashing out with views shaped by misunderstanding or limited understanding, no matter how justified we think we might be in doing so.

Remember, Waterboarding is NOT Torture.

A Quick Point to Make

From MSNBC.com

Here’s perhaps a reason why Obama was so hesitant initially about getting dragged into this debate over interrogation: Obama’s intelligence director Dennis Blair “told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists,” the New York Times says.

But,

Blair later released this statement: "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

____________

There will still be apologists for torture but I have to admit that those who do, do so at their own peril. They scale a slippery slope that, one broached, lends itself to an end justifies the means justification for increasing violence and brutality. "Because it keeps us safe" has been a historic rationalization for all kinds of inhumane behavior of which subsequent history has since taken a rather dim view. This goes well beyond everyone's favorite analogy of Nazi Germany. It applies to every center-right government who responds to an attack by a foreign enemy by embracing the same policies of fear and terror.

I admit I do not understand the mentality of people who seem to believe that the United States has a right to dictate terms to the rest of the world. In seeking to repair our damaged reputation in the eyes of the world community, Republicans seem to believe that we're asking permission from other nations as to what we should do---turning towards some completely submissive stance. This I really do not understand. At what point does wanting to work together with the rest of the world become this exercise in surrender or in capitulation? I don't think any power should run the world. If we're going to live together in some semblance of peace, this is going to have to be a stance that more of us are willing to take.

I Got An Award!

Neno's Award.

Thanks, Liberality!

Normally I Would Not Even Bother to Care, But...

The world of celebrity drama queens, irregardless of sexual orientation or gender usually produces in me a nearly jaw-breaking yawn. However, the recent controversy over Miss California's anti-gay marriage answer at the Miss USA pageant does inspire me to speak. Asked her personal opinion on the extremely controversial topic, she, in her own slightly articulate way affirmed that she believed that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. This was an answer, of course, much to the disdain of the openly gay Perez Hilton, one of the judges.

Contrary to what Mr. Hilton thinks, I believe she has a right to express her view, even if I strongly disagree with it. If in fact, as Hilton insists, she lost the competition based purely on her response to one answer, I think it's deeply unfair. Same-sex marriage advocates must take care not to resort to the same prejudicial tactics and close-minded attitudes of their enemies and detractors. If they do so, they risk creating a backlash that will only shore up the will of their opposition and delay the process altogether. Attitudes like this are catnip for the Fox News crowd and play right into prejudicial stereotypes.

Perhaps I simply don't understand the appeal of kitsch and camp. I admit freely that I don't get it at all. I can't comprehend the supposed glitz and glamor of the gorgeously trashy or the desire to live vicariously through them. I don't understand what's so appealing about dubiously intelligent media or pop princesses. Divas of all shapes and sizes annoy me. When I was in college, it was quite trendy to go to drag shows and I went to several of them. I found them to be tremendously boring affairs that I couldn't wait to leave.

Still, the irony of the pageant queen speaking in opposition against the queen who would otherwise be inclined to idealize her is itself an example of a deep, deep disconnect. The only other situation more ironic would be the gay icon who espouses homophobic points of view.

Why I'm Not Going

Yesterday I promised that I would explain why I have decided not to revisit my High School Class of 1999 by way of the reunion. Here it is.

These days, every function or event has its own corresponding Facebook page. So it is with my 10th High School Reunion which will be held in early August. The intent of the page was for people to confirm their attendance, indicating whether or not they attended to show up by clicking on the corresponding radial button. Of a class of nearly 700, roughly half confirmed that they would be there. Of those 350 souls, I made a point to investigate their profiles, pictures, and commentary.

I found myself not particularly enthused by what I read. No one all that interesting or compelling jumped out at me. Instead I observed the same kind of dull, unsubstantial conformity that confirmed why I never had any desire to befriend most of these people back in the day. High school was not an especially happy time of my life to begin with, so feigning interest with people who I feigned interest with back then does not excite me. I wouldn't be miserable. Instead I would be thoroughly bored.

In particular, the following statistics made the decision for me. Of my fellow classmates, I observed that

• 80% of them were married
• 60-70% self-identified as Conservative Christian
• 40-50% had children
• 60% went to Auburn University for undergraduate

I have to say that I'm batting 0 for 4 there. Those of you who understand what it's like to be the square peg will understand my plight. Back then, I felt resentful and full of scorn. These days, I have to say that I just don't understand. I don't understand people like that and I suppose I never will. I don't understand their political convictions, their interpersonal relationships, their faith traditions, and their cheerful willingness to procreate. So no, I'm not going. And in the process, I'll save $100.

Quote of the Week

You might notice I've changed the quote this week to someone who only exists in the realm of fantasy and narrative fiction. This is because, after much deliberation, I have decided not to attend my tenth high school reunion. More about that tomorrow.



Janie [Burnham's adolescent daughter] is a pretty typical teenager. Angry, insecure, confused. I wish I could tell her that's all going to pass, but I don't want to lie to her.-

Kevin Spacey as Lester Burnham in the film American Beauty.

Saturday Video

Blame it on the Tetons
yeah, I need a scapegoat now

Poem

I remember the Frau
who took my order

as I stared towards
the aging cemetery

on the day after Christmas

which reeks of satiated but
disappointed children

and seasons greeting yet
to be dismantled

I should not have spoken
I should have thought instead

All seemed to be forgotten
Two days hence

I gazed
past weed-covered

ill-kept resting places
of the dead.

upwards towards
an ancient elm

A Final Word on Tea Parties

Much ink has been already spilled about the faux-populist protests known as Tea Parties. I think it's fine for disgruntled conservatives to peacefully protest. Now they'll reach the same conclusions we on the left learned a long time ago: protests accomplish not all that much in the long run. Lawmakers ignore them altogether and their impact on a large scale is quite minimal. If Republicans want to use them as a way to network with each other and have solidarity in a kind of misguided, ill-thought-out ideology, that's probably the most realistic outcome they ought to expect from all the bluster.

The irony among many of these protests is that the first Tea Party was conducted by a bunch of rabble-rousing liberals who objected to a very conservative, very remote King dictating distasteful orders and increasing the American tax burden on staple products from across the ocean without any colonial say in the matter. The most immediate impact of throwing tea chests in the ocean was that Great Britain, in a retaliatory measure, closed Boston Harbor to trade and to increase the tax burden as punishment. These measures did, of course, effectively inflame the Patriot cause, which snowballed into armed rebellion a few months later. The major grievance colonists had with Mother Britain is that they were being used as a cash cow and source of cheap raw materials while not being fairly compensated for their goods. In 2009, then, using the phrase "tea party" then, is not a particularly accurate comparison to the current day. While the fear of and response to increased taxation is what both of these gatherings have in common, that's about as far as it goes.

The conservative argument assumes that nearly all taxes are evil by their very nature. Tax revenues, as their line of logic goes, fund unnecessary programs, are allocated improperly, or are embezzled by lawmakers and lobbyists. While it is true that there is wasteful spending and improper stewardship in government and always will be, the conservative argument assumes that the private sector is somehow immune from this same kind of gross incompetence, greed, graft, and corruption. If anything, the private sector is just as seriously flawed as the government if not more so, and certain companies resort to such shady accounting practices, blatant cronyism, and unfair labor practices that the government looks lily-white by comparison. I think a much fairer conclusion would be to say that neither government, nor the free market has some kind of intrinsic purity.

To reiterate, there are many fallacies in the conservative argument against taxation and so-called big government. The first is that somehow the Federal Government and Washington D.C. is the supreme offender. Many state governments are far more wasteful and ten times less effective. This is what gets conveniently left out of the discussion. The second is that government growth is a cancerous evil that must be checked lest it spread and destroy the country. I see no one on the right willing to acknowledge that if they believe that, they need also believe that the unchecked growth of huge corporations is a similar threat upon the rights of individuals, businesspeople, and consumers.