propoleno

Taoist Drinking Songs by Chung Ssu-Ch'eng

2011-07-31T13:23:00.000-04:00

Here, have some poetry. Explanatory details at the end.

plucking ferns to eat in exile at Shou-yang
in vain enduring hunger
wasn’t that just silly quibbling?
was Ch’ü Yüan’s sobriety
so much more grand than
T’ao Ch’ien’s getting drunk?
go find yourself a shady spot
sit idle on the ground.

----------

Po Ya searched out his Chung Tzu-ch’i
to talk about the meaning in his music
lute spoke to him of flowing streams and lofty hills
who knows my music so?
go find yourself a shady spot
sit idle on the ground.

----------

Then and now, gone and come, idle right and wrong
over and again fulfilling and falling
don’t brag to me of Han Hsin’s glory
don’t bother me with Ch’en P’ing wisdom
go find yourself a shady spot
sit idle on the ground

----------

for eagle and sparrow the same sky to fly in
jade and pebbles are both stone
how to divide in highs and lows
who cares what’s true, what’s false
go find yourself a shady spot
sit idle on the ground

----------

his tasteless heart like ashes
even the flavor of wine gone
he’s broken with his love the cup
he’s left her bed
and gone
to find himself a shady place
sit idle on the ground.

These poems, written by Chung Ssu-Ch'eng, are excerpted from The Wine of Endless Life: Taoist Drinking Songs from the Yuan Dynasty, edited / translated by Jerome P. Seaton. Very worthwhile read, I highly recommend it. You can pick up a copy through BookFinder.com for less than $10.

Ch’ü Yüan was "a loyal minister of the Ch'u state in the Warring States Period" and "China's first non-anonymous poet." T’ao Ch’ien, the "most famous of all the recluse-poets of traditional China," is known for his preference of "drinking and playing with children to official position. According to tradition he resigned office on one occasion because it was simply too much bother to put on his official girdle in order to have an audience with a superior."

Wood-cutter Chung Tzu-ch'i "is supposed to have been able to interpret the meaning of the music of Po Ya perfectly, hearing mountains and running water in the lute notes when Po played of mountains and streams. When Chung died Po Ya broke his lute and never played again."

Contemporary Poets That You Should Read

2011-07-13T16:59:00.004-04:00

I recently met somebody that likes poetry but doesn't know much after the mid-20th century, so I offered to gather up names & links for 'em. To provide a more varied list, I requested suggestions from poets that I know and planned on listing. Here's what I came up with:

Edgar Gabriel Silex suggested Charles Simic and W.S. Merwin.
Tony Brown.
Erik JM Schneider (and here) inadvertently turned me on to Max Wolf Valerio, and suggests both Lyn Hejinian and Rae Armantrout.
Jeffrey Hecker (and here) suggests Brigit Pegeen Kelly.
Shira Erlichman.
Jeffrey McDaniel.
Karyna McGlynn.
Richard Siken.
Jeff Hewitt (and here).
Anis Mojgani (and here).
Adam Rubinstein (and here).
Michael Hyde suggests Ernest Cline and Jennifer Michael Hecht.
Jason Quackenbush suggests B. H. Fairchild and Ron Silliman.
Melanie Wright suggests Don Paterson.
Cheryl Snow White suggests Denise Duhamel.

Also, Rattle Magazine is one of the leading lit rags, publishing a lot of good stuff, much of which is online.

Hey, Liberals, Stop Acting Like Stupid Children

2011-07-09T13:35:00.000-04:00

Back when everyone was high on Hope & Change, I called Obama as an idealistic left-leaning moderate capitalist that would disappoint his unrealistic base. I called the racial backlash and ineffectuality of Congressional leftists that led to the 2010 losses. He was never a socialist, and he's only progressive within the confines of a highly conservative culture that practically invented global capitalism. After all, the U.S. is the conservative stronghold of the "western world" or whatever.

I think he's a decent dude, a very intelligent guy with the best of intentions and some really sound ideas. Unfortunately, he is what he is, and there are sociopolitical factors well beyond his control. So, yeah, he's caving to the GOP or whatever. What the hell is he supposed to do? After all, he wants to be reelected (the DNC won't pick anyone else unless he refuses to run again), and that depends on more than just a bunch of progressives that are only happy when they're distracted by hype.

If he keeps fighting, it'll work against him as nothing will be accomplished, which is the hope of the GOP. He's a shrewd man, working a screwed up situation to the best of his abilities so as to ensure the opportunity to use the next four years to pull out the stops and get some real shit done.

So, progressives, quit whining. What are you going to do, not vote for him? That makes sense: let's punish Obama by bringing in a Republican president in 2012, 'cause he's totally worse than the Republicans. right?

Open Letter to SongMeanings.net Users

2011-07-07T12:30:00.000-04:00

Nobody cares if it's your favorite song. Nobody cares about what stupid high school romance shit is happening in your life that you somehow think a song about the American Revolution / Greek philosophy / class war somehow speaks to. Nobody cares if you think the band sucks. Nobody cares what songs or versions you prefer. Nobody cares that you went to a show unless the band in question told the crowd what the song is about (in which case, nobody cares if you had a good time or not). Nobody cares if you think the song should have more comments.

Song meanings. If you can't stay on topic, shut the fuck up.

Stuff and Things

2011-06-20T15:49:00.000-04:00

Here's the deal: I'm not entirely certain what I want to do with this blog. I've been analyzing a lot, questioning motivations, and I keep hitting a brick wall. So many people blog in some way or another, mostly to hardly anyone about shit that most people aren't interested in. It's mostly an exercise in ego, putting one's opinions out there because so many other people are, and we're just as important as they are, right? We need to counteract their bullshit, right?

I'm finding it more difficult to care. The Taoist / Discordian aspects of "self" are coming back around again as prominent influences, after ~5 years of significant self-education and ~3 years of dedication to college. I've studied so much anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, history and hard science that I've come back around to a better informed, more effective variation on who I was before. Kind of taking the position that ~2500 years of "Western" development have brought us to what the Taoists already figured out. I mean, shit, multiverse theory? Astrophysics these days is getting pretty intense, the geologic time scale makes the concerns of now seem absurd.

I'm finding it easier to laugh, though. Still find myself compelled to speak, rather frequently, but I can't think of much to say 'cause I don't see much point in it. I mostly just laugh at what happens, at what people say / do, at major events / developments.

Personally, I've gone three weeks without a cigarette, I graduate with my A.S. in social science this fall and plan to start on my B.A. in creative writing at ODU, I'm single for the first time in ~5 years, I've stopped drinking again (wasn't drinking much to begin with), and I'm looking for part time work. Everything is in flux, and I'm trying to get as much awesome out of that as possible. Listening to a lot of Einstürzende Neubauten lately, reading a lot more poetry (Rattle Magazine, Richard Siken, Anis Mojgani, Tony Brown).

So, yeah, there's all that. I'll be back around at some point or another, maybe with a better idea of what the hell I want to do with this space.

Book Culture?

2011-05-09T18:59:00.000-04:00

About a week ago, Morris Dickstein posted a transcript of his remarks given at a panel on “The Next Decade of Book Culture” from about a week prior. He covers a lot of the same old ground, laying out the same old facts, with about as much excitement as found in this very sentence. This isn’t to say that the ostensible death of “print media” is a good thing, just that we’ve been over it and over it and over it. Once it’s been discussed on Good Morning America, there’s little point in rehashing. For the most part, his analysis of the changes to book culture and the context that have brought them about, is solid.

Still, there’s a thinly veiled undercurrent of book reviewers collectively whining about the prevalence of the uneducated opinion in new, semi-permanent manifestations. It’s a little bit funny to watch. I understand their concern; the strand of horse hair holding Damocles’ sword aloft is being eroded by developments in material culture, threatening their relevance and income. Something so simple as barbed wire effectively eliminated the economic viability of being a cowboy. As a poet, I get it. There are more poets courting publication, more people reading poetry, but fewer culturally significant voices (of real merit, anyway). People are reading more, but there are more people writing and, frankly, most of them suck. I probably occupy that place for at least a few of the people that have read / heard my work. I don’t think our relationship with literature has changed terribly much, we’re just more exposed to it. Five minutes on a search engine can provide months of reading material, much of which is mediocre. The crap wasn’t quite so accessible, there were marginally fewer consumers of marginally more refined taste, and the opinions of the uninformed weren’t near so prevalent. The changes are significant enough to have an impact on the individual writer, but it’s mostly superficial and predicated on a short / selective memory.

What has changed is that the uninformed opinions of literature are no longer limited to conversation and private letters, but are cross-posted throughout the internet for any interested parties to read. I don’t feel that he makes this distinction clear enough, if at all. The disdain with which he refers to the democratization of literary critique strikes me as borne more of wounded pride than anything else. There has always been shit, and there has always been a bunch of academics ignoring it or gushing over it, vilifying the next generations’ classics. For example, while there’s a lot of garbage slam poetry, and a lot of justified debate as to the “soul” or whatever of slam, there’s too much awesome that was shat upon by ivory tower tools trying to maintain academia’s tight grip on poetry, the preservation of their increasingly conservative tastes. Sucks to lose your job, especially if the only other occupations available is teaching English composition and intro creative writing to undergraduates (I’ve already chosen that path, so there’s no disappointment for me). Still, as he touches on in his allusion to the tablets of Sinai, there’s a long history of the culture of literature.

The thing that really bugged me is his assertion that movies don’t constitute literature. This is predicated on an idealistic re-imagining of literary history, as if there isn’t at least a handful of forgotten mediocrity for every text that has stood the test of time, or at least is erroneously claimed to have done so. It’s predicated on arbitrary attachment to particular manifestations. Literature includes the oral tradition, tablets, hand-scribed tomes, leaflets, and traditionally printed books. It also includes film, video games, spoken word (including Tony Brown’s one-time readings: writing poems for one performance, then destroying the only physical copies on stage), and pretty much any act of expression seeking to use some form or medium to communicate something bigger (as in, crap fiction is about what happens within, but literature uses what happens to communicate something else, like The Old Man and the Sea as allegory for Jesus). Granted, most film isn’t very good, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t literature.

If these kind of logical holes and homeric nods are characteristic of the professional book reviewer, what are we really losing out on? There will always be uneducated crap and educated crap; at least these mostly marginal changes in book culture shake the foundations of that ivory tower. I’d rather decide for myself who has something worthwhile to say instead of being stuck with a self-important cabal of elitists that are just as off-the-mark as the rest of society.

Why the Silence?

2011-04-26T08:40:00.000-04:00

Life happens. Personal things. Coursework, including what became a 17p term paper for U.S. Government I on repression of dissent via weak interpretations of the Press Clause, a 4p research paper for U.S. History II on the political history of the 1960s, another 4p extra credit paper on The Birth of a Nation for the same class (any of which I'm willing to post if there's interest), and generally keeping up with Physical Geology. Semester ends next week, just gotta knock out three exams (two of which require two essays each). Looking forward to the break, to filling my time with physical activity, fixing shit up around the house, getting my Jeep back on the road, catching up with wonderful people that I've neglected these past few months, working on the manuscript, reading, reading, straightening out some bureaucratic bullshit with my financial aid, and getting enrolled in ODU for next spring semester.

And of course, I'll be posting here more regularly. Get your suggestions in now on the kind of stuff you'd like to see.

On Quitting Facebook

2011-03-06T16:32:00.002-05:00

It’s been about two months since I “quit” Facebook (henceforth “FB”). I still have an account, with no “friends” listed, that cannot be “friend-requested,” for the express purpose of maintaining the “like” page for my public writer persona thing. It’s been interesting, figuring out how to waste time when I can’t focus / want intellectual stimulation / feel like starting an argument with some jerk and/or idiot; when I cleared my browser history after quitting, there had been over 10,000 hits in three months. I’ve had a fair amount of time to reflect, discuss and observe.

The format of FB, sort of a Twitter meets crappy message board meets crappy journal platform, doesn’t allow for much depth. The rapidly decreasing attention span of modern culture, the successful efforts to smash the barriers between our “online selves” and “IRL selves” (which has earned a handful of people many billions of dollars in multiple now-linked industries), and the resulting redefinition of “friend,” have created a monster. Facebook is a novum, a thing that did not exist until it did, at which point society integrated it so quickly and thoroughly as to make it necessary; like the mp3, mobile phone, television, electricity, and the printing press, Facebook has radically changed the landscape of culture to the point that it can no longer be understood in the same terms as were relevant ten years ago. It reflects our changing value systems, which it exacerbates and guides into new directions.

Given that “our nature” is largely based on the application of an exceptionalist perspective to whatever narratives we’re presented with (i.e. - polity, geographic region, religion, hobby), in the context of the aforementioned traits of Facebook and modern culture, FB makes it incredibly easy to hate everyone that you know. People that you’ve met maybe a handful of times in public spaces (parties, clubs, a dingy coffeehouse) will “friend-request” you; you know each other, so you must be friends, right? All it takes to become “friends” is the click of a link, removing all of the hard work in proving worthwhile to / compatible with others; the amount of self-exceptionalism (which can easily coexist with self-loathing / -doubt) in a person directly correlates to the odds that they will add you to their validating collection of “friends.”

Self-exceptionalism also causes people to think that their every passing thought / action merits posting as a status update. These people that you got along with just fine as acquaintances to chat with at the club / local open mic / party are suddenly shown to you in a far more detailed light; suddenly, you realize that they think Obama’s birth certificate is forged, that shopping is their favorite hobby, that they’re intellectually dishonest as fuck, that they are obsessed with the Twilight “saga”, and that you hate them more and more with each successive status update / comment that you see. People that passively accepted the “death of privacy” now share the minutiae of their intellectual / personal lives in a way that you never had to be aware before. You were as close as you could be with these people while still being compatible, but no more; now, you see all the ways in which you aren’t, and a good many of ‘em can’t help but drop this noise all over your page from their new fancy phone-things ‘cause, well, that’s what we’re supposed to do, right? Using Facebook on our phone-things isn’t just normal, but expected; it’s quickly becoming the most prominent method of interaction. And of course, “friends” are going to clash on your page if you talk about anything which people have strong opinions; equally obvious is the most ignorant opinions being asserted most forcefully. While it was sometimes amusing to post something and watch people tear each other apart in my comments, it stymied legitimate discussion more than it entertained.

This one isn’t FB’s fault, but it really doesn’t play nice with my head noise. All of the aforementioned shit, in tangent with the fact that I could never quite get hip with these cultural changes (I resent them very much), was really bad when I was mooding. I embarrassed the hell out of myself a few times by Facebooking-while-crazy. One time, I attempted to engage a person with whom I didn’t get along on something political (she was saying dumb things), she said that it was probably a bad idea to interact, and ‘cause I was moody as hell, I bugged out on her, which has negatively colored the opinions of quite a few people, ‘cause it was open for hundreds to see. I would get sucked in, try to have substantive conversation with people when I felt like reaching out, and end up arguing a whole bunch, doing even more harm to my mood state.

I don’t think I need to go on all that much about FB as a massive data-mining project for the U.S. government and private industry, as well as its role in facilitating sales. It will soon likely be filled with sock puppet accounts run by the government to sway public opinion, sort of like the “supporters” of Mubarak that popped up on Twitter (the U.S. government contracted the infamous HBGary Federal to develop this project). I’m think I may have encountered one on Twitter already. But this isn’t the point.

I’ve seen a growing dissatisfaction with FB. Quite a few people that I know on or through Livejournal have backed off from FB or quit altogether, returning to LJ for the more deliberate, nuanced methods of online interaction. Though LJ is still pretty slow, the ratio of interesting posts-to-bullshit is the best it’s been in ten years. I hope to see this trend continue.

In the absence of Facebook as a means of facilitating social interaction (as opposed to using it as the platform for the interaction), I’ve found that I’m pretty much completely out of the loop. I don’t know where / when the social events are, what’s going on in the poetry or activist communities, or what’s happening in the lives of people that I never get to see ‘cause they’re too busy unless it was something else I can’t do anymore: the spontaneous meet-up over coffee / a beer. I’m not happy about these things, but I still feel that I made the right decision.

Meta / Open Letter to Scott Rigell

2011-02-23T10:55:00.001-05:00

Been busy. Exams are hitting back-to-back and term papers are starting to loom. Interactions with bureaucracy.

Sent a letter to Rep. Scott Rigell (R):

I recognize that our economy is pretty wrecked and, as such, unpleasant cuts are necessary. Though I hate to see the social programs on which so many people depend getting gutted, cuts to higher education assistance, and crippling of public broadcasting, I understand that there's no way around it.

There's a disconnect, though. I don't like seeing the economy exploited as erroneous justification for waging a social war against such relatively inexpensive programs that have historically (and often without good reason) been opposed by the GOP. If you and your peers would take a salary cut, put a freeze on future raises, and tax the upper middle and upper classes at reasonable rates, I could live with some of these proposed cuts. As it stands, the historically awful idea of giving the rich tax breaks, the idea that has preceded every economic downturn since taxes have been levied, is being continued. We could also make larger cuts to defense, without compromising the lives or livelihoods of those within the military, by limiting R&D into such wasteful projects as the flying Jeep (most of which never go anywhere), scaling back our occupation in such countries as Germany and Japan, and a freeze on pay raises for higher ranking individuals that, frankly, are making a very good living already.

The money freed up by the proposed cuts to Planned Parenthood and NPR, as two of many examples, is negligible without significant cuts elsewhere.

Put frankly, why should the many make such sacrifices if the few make none and, at least as often as not, prosper as a result of our sacrifices? Hell, double the tax people making over $2 million a year and they'll still be rich. Why are the poor the ones that always pay?

Hoping to get a response with more substance than "Thanks, we take the opinions of our constituents very seriously!", but I'm not holding my breath.

Not gone, just too busy / weary of the mainstream political discourse. Things will pick up when they do, and you all can resume the occasional reading / infrequent commenting.

Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Wisconsin?

2011-02-19T19:43:00.000-05:00

This is the most attention, and most honest attention, I've seen given to a labor dispute here in a while. So, who thinks we ought to spread the dissent? I think it might be fun for us Americans to turn off Jersey Shore / American Idol / Robot Chicken / CSI, stand up, and make some noise. Hell, if enough people get in on it, maybe we'll see some modicum of reform beyond symbolic gestures.

I mean, why the hell not? Let the unemployed take to the streets, spange outside businesses catering to the well-off or government buildings, blow up the phones of our representatives, gather in parks for "stop fucking us!" picnics. Lets have some fun with it. Who's down?

Shift

2011-02-16T10:54:00.000-05:00

If the numbers are any indication, international politics aren't all that interesting. Given how much time went into the last post on Egypt, and how much more on the planned three posts to follow it, I don't know if it matters. This is a good thing, I suppose; I've got coursework to handle and a book to write, in addition to that whole "day-to-day living" thing.

If enough people ask, I'll continue the series (as I enjoy the process of research / writing). As it stands, I'm going to return to the one-post-at-a-time practice, predicated on passing whims. This will likely not involve much in the way of domestic U.S. politics, like the piece of shit budget and the G.O.P.'s war on women; the leftist blogosphere is overflowing with posts on those topics, and frankly, it disgusts me. I'm moving into a more individualist streak, as our species is depressingly stupid to the point that I start sounding like a bitter, psychopathic functionalist supervillain. Like I've said before, the fringe douchebags get their toehold and affect policy 'cause we allow them to.

Do we deserve the worst they can give us? Right now, my answer is yes, and I know enough to recognize that as a problem. Modern global society is going to be just as fucked up, whether or not I jump on the blogwagon populated by HuffPo, Alternet, Pandagon, Kos, Crooks & Liars, etc. If you want that shit, read it there. If you want my take on something, ask me, and I'll be glad to approach it to the best of my abilities, with my own methods / emphasis. Otherwise, strap in, 'cause don't nobody know what the hell is gonna happen here next.

Jasmine Revolution: Egypt, Part 1

2011-02-14T09:33:00.002-05:00

By now, I imagine everyone has heard about Mubarak stepping down on Saturday. Of course, the Egypt uprising was inspired by the Tunisia uprising, contributing to a rise of Pan-Arab sentiments and similar actions in plenty of other countries. There's simply too much to cover in one post, so I'm going to focus on the Egypt situation in particular right now. The next posts will go into more depth about what's happening in countries such as Iran, Gabon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Syria, Kuwait, Uganda, etc., as well as the current situation on the ground in Egypt.

The word "zeitgeist" comes to mind. My partner described this as a great example of trans-cultural diffusion; she's far more qualified to go into the series of events in that context than I, so I'm trying to convince her to write something up to post here. Trust me when I say that if she does, it will be awesome. Join me in the persuasion; you'll be thankful that you did.

To understand what's gone down in Egypt, it's necessary to understand their recent cultural and political history. Christian Science Monitor posted a brief overview of Mubarak's legacy and AP has a breakdown of his final hours in office, the source of which is speculated to be a leak by military officials. Contrary to many reports, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization that orchestrated the uprising to instill their anti-American, freedom-hating regime to destroy apple pie or something. Mother Jones has a really in-depth article about their history, philosophy, and role in the uprising; this is definitely the most even-handed, intellectually honest discussion of them that I've seen thus far.

Their foreign policy is also of note, as is that of the U.S. and Israel. Zero Anthropology, a blog worth following, goes into the Clinton Doctrine of foreign relations, commenting on the sort of hands-off approach that works much better than the drum-beating, bomb-dropping, and arms-dealing kind of diplomacy that has been so common since Reagan. Foreign Policy Watch, another blog worth following, discusses the contents of a NYT article, speculated to be a leak from the Obama administration. Al Jazeera has a really solid op-ed from a self-described member of the "pro-Israel, pro-peace camp", in which the history of U.S./Israel and Egypt/Israel relations is parsed, along with interactions with Turkey and Jordan. He makes a connection that you're not likely to see in the mainstream U.S. "liberal media" that struck me as interesting:

"And then there is the latest fright word, the Muslim Brotherhood. You would never know it from Halevi, but the Brotherhood is non-violent, has always opposed al-Qaeda, and condemned 9/11 and other acts of international terrorism.

Yes, they are an Islamic organization which would prefer an Egypt based on Islamic law, much as the Shas party - a significant part of Israel's ruling coalition - pushes for an Israel based on its extreme interpretation of Torah." (emphasis mine)

So far as how it all went down, there's a really interesting article over at Wall Street Journal discussing how the Jan. 25 event was motivated and orchestrated. The bit that stood out for me is the class issue; though it was mostly planned and kicked off by the middle class, they went about it in such a way to mobilize the working class, the response to which was (obviously) monumental. This was not a movement of Islamists, the bourgeoisie, or western meddling; Mubarak was brought down by the working class. In line with this, there's another bit of info that has been largely ignored by the mainstream U.S. "liberal media," which doesn't surprise me in the least ('cause I know the "liberal media" is a myth); it wasn't the protests that changed things, but the strikes. Sixteen days of mass protest saw the kind of empty promises from Mubarak that the Egyptian people knew well not to trust, but only two days of widespread strikes by entire industries ranging from petrochemicals to nursing preceded his resignation. Now, I'm not saying that it's entirely due to the strikes, but it sure as shit had a much more profound impact than the mainstream discourse is letting on. This is all discussed in likely one of the best Infoshop articles I have ever read. If you only click on one link, make it this one.

This is looking like a three-parter at the moment, possibly a four-parter. In the next post, I'll dig into the current situation in Egypt; what the military is doing, what difficulties are being faced on the ground, what the people are doing in the wake of regime change. As with this post, feel free to ask questions / put forth concerns in regards to issue at large, and I will do my best to incorporate them into the next post.

Poetry Link Round-Up / Prelimary

2011-02-13T11:43:00.000-05:00

From earlier today, Tony Brown's 'Ninety Minutes In,' over at his blog

Also from earlier today, 'Building Kanye West' by John Paul Davis, over at New Verse News; this is an interesting blog, which you should follow. Basic premise: "presents politically progressive poetry on current events and topical issues."

I'm excited to announce that The Dredge Cycle has relaunched with a spiffy new design; check out Adam's latest post on the responsibilities inherent in borrowing from / identifying with the spiritual modes of indigenous cultures, within a culture steeped in imperialism.

Moving on from poetry-related things, I'm working on what will likely be two-to-three posts concerned with the "Jasmine Revolution." Areas of emphasis include directly relevant modern history of Egypt, the current situation on the ground there, and the diffusion from Tunisia / through Egypt to, well, at least a dozen places to some extent or another. Now is your chance to ask questions, put forth concerns, etc.; chime in, influence the course of the post(s).

And have a wonderful day.

The "Drop" in Unemployment

2011-02-10T23:19:00.000-05:00

Do you follow Sociological Images? If not, you seriously should. In a recent post, they dig into the Bureau of Labor report that unemployment rates have dropped to 9%. While the post goes into much more detail, detail that is worth the ninety seconds or so worth of reading, I learned this in my Intro to Sociology class at community college; unemployment does not, I repeat, does not measure the percentage of the population that is currently unemployed. Don't let the politicians and/or the infotainment industry bullshit you.

A Quick Note from Utah

2011-02-10T11:08:00.000-05:00

"Frying-Pan Jack and I were in that camp, that's where he said to me, he'd been tramping since 1927, 'I told myself in '27, if I cannot dictate the conditions of my labor, I will henceforth cease to work.' You don't have to go to college to figure these things out, no sir. He said, 'I learned when I was young that the only true life I had was the life of my brain. But if it's true that the only real life I had was the life of my brain, what sense does it make to hand that brain to someone for eight hours a day, for their particular use, on the presumption that at the end of the day they will give it back in an unmutilated condition? Fat chance!'"

Utah Phillips, you are missed.

Something to Consider

2011-02-09T14:49:00.000-05:00

Jose Agostinho Pereira, Brazilian Who Abused Captive Daughter, Decapitated In Prison Riot

Many years ago, I spent some time at a sketchy-ass rave house in Norfolk. Had a buddy that spun there occasionally, and another buddy that made purchases there, so I'd tag along periodically, all done up in my ironic poor man's goth get-up, and dance to Aphex Twin. Found out from a cab driver I knew that cops were watching the place, and it had a weird vibe, so it wasn't tough to stop going. Sure enough, place got busted soon thereafter. The "proprietor" was busted for possession / distribution of various things, including the ecstasy he used to date rape young pretty Navy boys and a significant amount of child pornography. The one time I met him, I was really creeped out; this news justified that feeling.

Between stories I heard from people that knew him and another buddy that was doing time simultaneously for purse-snatching or heroin possession or something, he was fucked with the angry end of a broken broomstick within a few months of getting locked up. Not surprisingly, my reaction was something like, "the world is a better place than it was yesterday."

Still, something lingered. There's a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing every child molester and rapist face-fucked with a shotgun, a sentiment that I'm sure is shared with many people. There's the part of me that views these monsters as victims, as most of them don't just wake up one day, all like "I've got the day off of work, I'm bored, so I think I'll force sexual acts on somebody weaker than me"; these monsters are created, both by the prevailing narratives on which culture is based and the actions of other monsters.

I'm not here to ask what right we have as a society to punish those deviants that our society creates, not today. I'm here to say that I understand the urge to see every last one of these motherfuckers brutalized slowly, while critiquing that which allowed Pereira to be killed in such a way. The measure of our ethics is how we apply them when it's difficult to do so; you don't get to be a pacifist if you want to punch that jerk over there in the face, you don't get to be a human rights advocate if you would deny certain humans those rights. It's easy to say that stealing is wrong if you're never in a situation in which you could get away with theft. We don't get to turn off our ethics when we're pissed off, even justifiably so (as in the case of this horrible bastard).

So, like pretty much all of you, some part of me said "good" when I saw the headline, but this event came about as a result of the deprivation of human rights, plain and simple. Little will be done to prevent such events because it's so easy to hate these monsters.

I wasn't upset when that rave-hosting date rapist and pedophile was murdered in jail, but in retrospect, it should have been prevented. Not because he deserved a long, happy life, but because the brutal circumstances of his death directly resulted from ethical flaws ingrained in our culture that easily allow for innocent people to face similar ends. Not all consequences of shitty prison systems are chuckle-worthy like these two examples.

Strange Things

2011-02-09T09:44:00.000-05:00

The Tea Party voted lockstep against extending the PATRIOT Act, along with the Democrats. The Obama administration is pushing to extend it through 2013.

I don't understand it. What the hell, Obama? You're gonna let yourself get shown up by a bunch of jackasses with a 3rd grade grasp on history and civics? You've broken your word to not intervene with states on marijuana laws, you've done nothing with the FEC since the SCOTUS pretty much gave American politics to private industry, you've dropped "God is on our side" and "~~weapons~~ tools of mass destruction" in speeches like you're a goddamn neo-con, you've dragged ass on LGBT issues... what really bugs me is that he's still prolly the nicest guy we've had in office, and one of the better qualified ones at that; nicest, most decent authoritarian capitalist tool we've had so far.

I hate mainstream politics.

It's So Obvious

2011-02-08T22:46:00.000-05:00

And Americans are stupid cows for not seeing it. The Republicans are dicking around while the Obama administration is actually making an effort. I don't agree with the man on quite a few things, but credit where it's due: at least he's doing something.

Sometimes I think that the stupid conservatives deserve what the GOP does to them. It's either that, or they're brainwashed victims. Which one is less insulting?

Poetry Link Round-Up

2011-02-07T17:38:00.001-05:00

Two pieces from Dark Matter's Tony Brown: "Blood Quantum" and "My Dirty Little Secret".

Via the good people at Rattle, Lee A. Tonouchi's "Batteries".

Via The New Verse News, Terry S. Johnson's "Before and After".

From her blog, Bullets, Suzi Q. Smith's "When They Tell You Not to Sing".

Check Out The Duende Project

2011-02-02T21:36:00.002-05:00

This is the project of Tony Brown (from Dark Matter) and Faro; solid stuff. They've got a CD/chapbook coming out, if it isn't already. Check it out, join the mailing list, pass it along.

What Revolution?: Introduction

2011-02-02T00:21:00.002-05:00

There's a quote by Russian anarchist, Peter Kropotkin that has stuck with me for a while:

I understand regicide as a means of obtaining vengeance for the ruin of our lives, but regicide as a means of obtaining political freedom I could never understand.

There's another quote by neo-situationist, Bob Black, most known for his thought-provoking essay, The Abolition of Work (which you should seriously read; it's not terribly long), that kicked off a pretty heavy series of intellectual / philosophical events a few years back:

"The real enemy" is the totality of physical and mental constraints by which capital, or class society, or statism, or the society of the spectacle expropriates everyday life, the time of our lives. The real enemy is not an object apart from life. It is the organization of life by powers detached from it and turned against it. The apparatus, not its personnel, is the real enemy. But it is by and through the apparatchiks and everyone else participating in the system that domination and deception are made manifest. The totality is the organization of all against each and each against all. It includes all the policemen, all the social workers, all the office workers, all the nuns, all the op-ed columnists, all the drug kingpins from Medellin to Upjohn, all the syndicalists and all the situationists.

They work well in tangent with each other, and in the context of the history of power relations. I feel that the assassination of Italian King Umberto I by Gaetano Bresci was entirely understandable, but it obviously did little for the overall well-being of the people, as the rise of fascism proves. U.S. President McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, inspired by Bresci's act and a desire for acceptance by such anarchists as Emma Goldman, was not entirely together in the head and his actions actively benefited the industrialists of the Gilded Age by providing a great talking point for anti-labor and anti-civil rights propaganda. Assassination, along with most acts of violence, are very effective tools against progressive elements, no matter who carries them out. State violence is easily justifiable in the public discourse, and relatively easily hidden; violence against the state (and other elements of power, such as capital) is just as easy to spin for their benefit.

The problem is culture. For every douchebag, there's a line of thousands of mostly decent people ready to fill their shoes. It is the system itself, not any particular individual or group that keeps people down, and we are all very much a part of that system; the ability of fringe assholes to have significant effects is directly predicated on the willingness of the masses to allow it. We're born into a system that, well, brings to mind another quote, this time from Jiddu Krishnamurti:

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

We're all sick, to some extent or another; it's no statement on our individual ethics or intelligence, as we can generally only choose from those narratives to which we are exposed.

This is part of a much larger topic, one I've been working on for a few years; I want to update this blog more frequently, and I don't want to stay up until 4:00 AM writing a goddamn treatise. Keep your eyes peeled.

'Cause Violent Rhetoric Doesn't Help

2011-01-29T20:28:00.000-05:00

Finally got around to watching Capitalism: A Love Story. There were some details that I did not know, but it was mostly preaching to the converted in my case. This is not the case with most people that I know; there are some isolated individuals and anarchist activists that already get it, but most of the leftists that I know don’t really seem to get it. It’s preaching, yes, but it’s the most straightforward, accurate preaching he’s done yet. There are a couple of scenes and turns of phrase that I felt were unnecessary, such as introducing Ronald Reagan with a scene from a movie in which he slaps a woman across the face with significant force, before launching in to all of the valid reasons to hate the guy; it was a childish, intellectually dishonest moment, but those moments were relatively few. Only bugs me ‘cause of intellectually dishonest people that will use those moments to discredit the entirety of the film without giving it the consideration that it deserves.

And it deserves a lot of consideration. I mean, damn. I wish he’d reissue it with an additional 30 minutes showing how much Obama has done to preserve this broken system when he’s not in front of the cameras and microphones, how the discourse has been hijacked by the "astroturf" Tea Party (mostly thanks to the "liberal media"). It’s safe to assume that Michael Moore himself “leaked” the film to the internet, so anybody can download it from such sources as The Pirate Bay and Demonoid; he could distribute it the same way.

It got me thinking, though. He talks about the hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt people accrue in the hopes that they can get a decent job that they care about, but are instead funneled into jobs that are actively harmful to society so they can make enough to chip away at their debt, so long as they don’t end up homeless, without a pension, incapacitated by medical issues that they can’t afford to address, or saddled with even more debt trying to make ends meet. The conservatives and fake leftists say that it’s wrong for the state to compel the successful to distribute fractions of their millions to those trying to put their life together / live a meaningful life / see to their responsibilities.

Well, I’m going to ask them myself. I’m already around $4,000 in debt to the government, a number that will likely increase significantly when I’m no longer able to hole up in the back room of my parents’ tiny-ass townhouse. The goal is to teach at a community college, make enough to live at a modest means, secure my ability to retire, and help people however I am able along the way. Recent changes to financial aid law suggest that I can get up to two-thirds of that debt written off if it’s a state-owned college, which is cool, but not good enough. So, I’m going to draft a letter and send it out to every last rich motherfucker I can find, every millionaire board member and C.E.O., every multi-billion dollar company, and ask each of them for money to finance my ability to get a college education, so as to facilitate my ability to actually contribute to society. It’s more than tuition. The schools collude with the textbook companies to fleece the students for hundreds of dollars per student per semester (which, at my school, is being put toward a totally unnecessary $70 million student center in the middle of a lake with a Subway and Taco Bell, so they look like a good school or something). I also need to eat, have somewhere to live, wear shoes without huge holes in the soles, stay in toilet paper / cold medicine if I’m sick / toothpaste / gas or fare for public transit if it’s available, wear a jacket when it’s cold, and maybe buy a couple of books or see a $5 matinee every few months.

I totally expect to be rejected by damned near all of them, but fuck it, why not? They made their profits by screwing us, screwing our parents, screwing the environment (which screws future generations), and screwing people in the developing world (especially the ones that aren’t white).

Make everyone you know watch Capitalism: A Love Story. It’s little new for anti-capitalists, but most liberals I know are still defending Clinton and Pelosi, still spending like their actions don’t contribute, still going about their business as close to usual as their circumstances allow. Show it to your conservative parents, and challenge them to successfully rebut the film at large (and not just those few childish moments).

Link: Why we love bad writing

2011-01-15T20:19:00.000-05:00

Eric, from over at Wet Asphalt, posted a link to Laura Miller's op-ed, Why we love bad writing, a response to novelist Edward Docx's controversial Guardian op-ed, Are Stieg Larsson and Dan Brown a match for literary fiction?

I think she's got it right, and that her C.S. Lewis quotes are quite relevant. Still, to borrow a sentiment from Mark Twain, I don't care for toadstools that fancy themselves truffles.

And the Twilight series is trash. If you need any evidence of this, look at what passes for a bookshelf in the home of its most dedicated fans.

Good Poetry from Good People (and a song)

2011-01-15T02:01:00.000-05:00

My buddy Edgar Gabriel Silex posted a solid new piece at his blog, Pink Velvet Jesus; check it out. I've got two of his books on my shelf, Through All the Displacements and Acts of Love, just waiting to be devoured.

Also, there are a handful of original copies remaining of Adam Rubinstein's Freshwater Dredge, one of my favorite collections of poetry. Ever. Top 5 stuff, and my shelves are overflowing. More than that, the book-as-object is an absolutely wonderful example of how the books themselves can be a part of the art object, instead of just a medium. Get on it, and be sure to follow his blog, The Dredge Cycle, as well.

On a non-poetry note, check out anticon. recording artist, WHY?'s cover of Pavement's badass b-side, "Shoot the Singer (1 Sick Verse)." I love WHY?, I love Pavement; they mix well.

Goodbye, Facebook

2011-01-10T17:44:00.000-05:00

I've come to the conclusion that Facebook is toxic for me. Simply put, it produces problematic side effects when mixed with my bipolar or whatever, and it takes up way too much of my time that I could otherwise spend doing... well, I'll have to figure that one out; hopefully, it'll involve studying and working on my book and reading and exercising. We'll see how that works out.

First day of the spring semester today, so it's a good time to break away; will make it easier to restructure the details of my time management as it's all in flux right now anyway.

Quite possibly, I'll post here more frequently, and my commentary will be better sourced and less pissy given the difference in format.

I reject the novum. I don't want it anymore. Good riddance.

Residential Tranquility Act and Creepy Stalkers

2010-12-03T00:19:00.000-05:00

So, have you heard about the WikiLeaks thing?

Kidding, of course. That's too big a topic to tackle in the last week of the semester. By month's end, I'll have a few pages worth of commentary; mostly gathering information, collecting concerns. In the meantime, it's cold outside, I'm bored, rocking out to a newly procured rare semi-official collection of demos and live tracks by post-punk/funk outfit The Pop Group, and making connections between seemingly unrelated things.

Over at GreenIsTheNewRed.com, a very informative (if periodically dogmatic) source for info on the state repression of activists (particularly environmentalists), posted a quick one about the Residential Tranquility Act in Washington, D.C. (link). The basic gist of the article is that the law is an attempt to block activists from legally exercising their first amendment rights by dint of the fact that the desired effect occurs, or something to that effect. I'll admit it, I understand and sympathize with their position. The compartmentalization of our jobs from our character is a problem that allows for the effective perpetuation of all sorts of unnecessary, problematic things; also makes it easier for people to succumb to alienation. I understand and agree that what a person does for a living should reflect on their character, but I also understand that a lot of people don't have much of a choice, don't care 'cause they've got a reasonably well-constructed ethical system that allows for what they do, and have every reason to be freaked out when they see a bunch of white middle class college students in masks surrounding their home.

'Cause seriously, that'd spook me out, and I've broken through police blockades with those people before. Dude's pitching a fit about first amendment blah blah, but it seems that the law just puts common sense restrictions on how well-meaning kids of privilege go about instilling fear in people with ethically questionable careers.

Last night, my partner asked me if I'd be willing to call up some dude that's getting his creepy, possessive stalker on with a friend of hers. I considered for about 24 hours and came to the conclusion that my intimidation factor comes from body language, size, context, and reputation. Having someone pretend to be your pissed off boyfriend is a trick you can only try once, so it's best to have someone do it that can effectively scare the shit out of someone over the phone. I'm really hoping that she finds someone better qualified, and that this person spooks that stalker douche into not leaving his house anymore except to go to work and back.

And this is why I ultimately oppose this law. Right now, that dude is driving past her house, texting and calling her regularly, talking about some "we're meant to be" and "you're mine, you've always been mine" and all that crazy shit, and the cops won't do anything. Technically, he's not breaking the law. He actually has to break into her house, clearly threaten her or her family with violence in front of witnesses, post videos of her peeing on YouTube before the cops will bother. Most likely, when they do bother, they'll only issue a magical piece of paper that puts up an invisible, stalker-proof fence surrounding... oh, wait, restraining orders are effectively useless. These rapists-in-training can do all sorts of creepy, threatening shit so long as they stay within some pretty wide parameters of behavior, but a bunch of mostly pacifist trustafarians holding signs and chanting hackneyed slogans about animal cruelty or climate change is a serious threat? Are you kidding me?

Far as I'm concerned, this clear contradiction in the legislation is evidence of political motivations and just how far our society has to go when it comes to actually giving a rat's ass about women.

Necessary Clarifications for Discussing Racism

2010-11-25T02:22:00.001-05:00

A recent discussion has reminded me that differing definitions can lead to miscommunication. So I figured I'd restate a few things.

"That was racist" is not the same as "you are a racist."

If you think somebody said/did something racist (adj.), don't call them a racist (n.); point out how an act was racist (adj.), using reason and evidence (instead of "OMGfuckyouracist"). Differentiate. Some of the most decent, intelligent people I have met are some kind of racist (adj.); this does not mean that they are racists (n.). This does not mean that they are bigots, that they are monsters, that they deserve to be publicly shamed and humiliated. Hell, if it doesn't actually contribute in the fight against racism, public shame and humiliation of those that are deserving in principle (like admitted fascists) is inappropriate.

So, for re-cap, these words are not synonymous: racist (adj.), racist (n.), racism, bigotry, prejudice. In passing conversation, one can often stand in for the other, but even a cursory examination of racism necessitates specificity. You can no more discuss the sociology of minority group relations without utilizing the proper terms than you can astrophysics, literary theory, oncology, or architecture.

Quick Question About Motivations Behind TSA Sexual Assaults

2010-11-22T00:42:00.000-05:00

Er, I mean security measures. Yeah.

Obama, along with so many conservatives, is defending them as necessary given the threat of terrorism. I gotta wonder, when the hell are we going to examine why people want to blow us up, maybe do something about that? Has it ever occurred to anyone that maybe our foreign and economic policy is giving crazy assholes and the desperate sound reason(s) for anger? I'm not saying that blowing up passenger flights is justifiable, 'cause it's not; it's a dick move, no doubt about that, but an unreasonable act can be predicated on reasonable concerns. Just look at the people in the Tea Party (as compared to the private interests that manipulated their understandable frustration, often via dog whistle racism).

Just sayin'. This either/or crap doesn't stand up, and reactionary measures generally don't work all that well. Never mind the part where pretty much every developed nation faces a constant threat of terrorism, and the governments don't all throw hissyfits and suspend civil liberties (as in, some do, but many don't).

Campaigning

2010-11-17T15:50:00.000-05:00

It seems as if the sting of election day has somewhat worn off; there’s still a throbbing, but the left is back to the normal practice of good-natured muckraking. It helps that the GOP gives us so much ammo, lets us feel real superior, it’s a nice salve to take the burn off. As the more reasonable leftist heads have said, this lost battle can benefit the left. Case in point, check out Tim Wise’s scathing Open Letter to the White Right; though he’s not likely to convert many people on the fence with his teeth out like that, he makes some important points for the left to consider. Ultimately, this is a backlash; more than that, it’s a calculated backlash. This election was not lost solely because of freaked out white people that aren’t all that great at critical thought; those people were there, and they’ve been instrumental, but they were given a platform.

Private interests started planning for a GOP loss pretty much as soon as Bush got reelected; while it wasn’t absolutely certain, the odds were in the DNC’s favor. These private interests are very well organized, very well funded, and have a lot of really intelligent people on their payroll for the express purpose of anticipating, accounting for, and manipulating political trends. Billions go into it. For better or for worse, credit is due: they are ruthlessly effective. They knew that Obama was a threat since he finished the speech that brought him into the national eye; they also knew that Clinton was a threat, as far back as W.’s first term. They knew that there would be a backlash, as there always has been whenever social progress is made (again, I point to the Tim Wise article).

There’s a consistent link between voter turnout (particularly the youth) and GOP losses. When the youth don’t vote, the left doesn’t win elections, plain and simple. Getting the vote out requires more than simple campaigning, more than signs and commercials and cold calls. It takes subterfuge, strategy, planning; a foundation must be built years in advance, ‘cause most of the youth are either too preoccupied with basic survival and/or stoned. There needs to be anger, there needs to be excitement. I know, it’s hard to get excited about Democrats, ‘cause they’re mostly spineless and ineffective, but we can do something about that. We can take lessons from the Tea Party, and the less publicized and more reasonable conservatives that were also mobilized in great (enough) numbers. This doesn’t mean that we do things how they have, just that we take the good and abandon the bad.

The GOP are going to fuck up. They are going to stymie Congress and effectively make everything worse. They’re going to campaign in 2012 on propaganda, pointing out all of the things they did as the fault of Democrats. And the Democrats are going to be too useless to effectively counter them. This is where we come in. Anyone that has read this blog or that knows me personally knows that I kind of hate the Democrats, that I challenge the philosophical legitimacy of government in pretty much all forms, but I can’t let my ideals get in the way of living by my ideals. Relinquishing control to the bigger bastards is only going to hurt people more, and the Trotskyist belief that Americans will rise up when things get bad enough has consistently failed. Yes, I’m looking at all of you stupid fucking anarchists that voted for Bush both times.

An attorney general in Virginia won the 2008 election by fewer than 40 votes. I’ve had parties with more than 40 registered voters in attendance. Even if voting accomplishes little at the federal level, local elections are very prone to the impact of voting, and are arguably more important. After all, federal policy is generally built on the precedent of state policy, itself built on the precedent of local policy. I can’t help but thinking that Virginia would be in a somewhat better financial situation if the left would have put their bongs down long enough to go vote for people that aren’t as committed to the costly and ineffective war on drugs, privatized prisons, and tax breaks for the rich. If we’re going to make things better, we need to stop whining, stop distracting ourselves with the Spectacle, stop getting lost in our own microcosms, and fucking get involved. Fostering community ties is better for individuals, especially in hard economic times, and it sets a groundwork for campaigning later on.

If we want things to get better, we need to remember the goddamn point of “Yes We Can”: that if it’s gonna get done, we have to do it, and we will do it as soon as we stop screwing around and get on the ball. He’s not ideal, but Obama is the best authoritarian asshole we’ve had in quite a long time, and I firmly believe that his best policies won’t be enacted unless he gets a second term. I firmly believe that the condition of our communities, cities, counties, and states are entirely in our hands.

Some Interesting Figures

2010-11-05T23:00:00.000-04:00

This little snippet was sent my way by my buddy, Derek. Like him, I'm not saying shit about 'em.

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, published 2006

Table 1. Public and Private Acceptance, Ranked Groups Responses (%)

This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society
—Atheist 39.6
—Muslim 26.3
—Homosexual 22.6
—Conservative Christian 13.5
—Recent Immigrant 12.5
—Hispanic 7.6
—Jew 7.4
—Asian American 7.0
—African American 4.6
—White American 2.2

I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group
—Atheist 47.6
—Muslim 33.5
—African American 27.2
—Asian American 18.5
—Hispanic 18.5
—Jew 11.8
—Conservative Christian 6.9
—White 2.3

Source: American Mosaic Project Survey, 2003.

A Few Thoughts on U.S. Politics

2010-11-05T02:33:00.000-04:00

-Nothing gets done quickly in U.S. politics. This isn't an accident. The Senate was put in specifically to serve as a buffer between the will of the people and change. We're still parsing the ways that Reagan and Clinton fucked up, so there's no way that we can possibly know what Obama has / hasn't done. If some mad scientist made a super politician out of the genes of the Framers, with a little bit of Jesus thrown in, two years wouldn't be enough to do all that much.

-That said, the Democrats have this bad habit of dragging their feet. They should have taken a page out of W.'s playbook and not worried all that much about public opinion or the minority party. If you've got a solid platform, carry it out; don't keep looking back at a bunch of uneducated people all sucked in to Fox and MSNBC for approval. Fucking do your job.

-The U.S. is the conservative stronghold of "the First World." We have the Two-Headed Capitalist Party. The "progressives" in office are mostly moderate capitalists. Barack Obama is a capitalist and a moderate. To think otherwise is predicated on a U.S.-centric perspective on the world; rather, that the U.S. is the standard against which all other political ideologies are judged. This is, itself, indicative of one of the reasons why our political process was fashioned to move so slowly. 'Cause even without the influence of propaganda and disenfranchisement, most of us are entitled, ignorant, selfish, ethnocentric, xenophobic, close-minded jerk-offs. Some of the nicest, most intelligent people I've met fall into many of these categories. I'm sure I have my moments.

-Silver lining: we all know the GOP is gonna spend more time trying to buck the Obama administration than trying to do something about the important problems we're facing. They're going to make things worse. If Obama has a chance in hell at reelection, the losses in the midterm elections will be it.

-Apparently, for the first time in a century, we've got an all white Senate. Think about this: 1910 is before women's suffrage and during the Nadir period of race relations (the height of lynching, named such as it was considered worse than slavery and Reconstruction). Just think about it.

Some Numbers to Consider

2010-08-25T17:18:00.000-04:00

A poet acquaintance of mine, Alvin Lau, posted some disturbing math to his Facebook page earlier today.

"According to the Coalition for the Homeless, there are about 672,000 homeless people in America. According to USA today, there are about 23,400,000 empty or unsold houses in America. So for every homeless person, there are about 35 empty homes. Thirty. Five"

Personally, I think the homeless need to start squatting these places. In fact, it just now occurred to me that distributing legal info regarding squatter's rights might be a good idea.

The fact that homes are being built at such a rate (even after the economic whatever people are calling it this week) is kind of disgusting, and indicative of how stupid, overly individualistic, materialistic, etc. the United States really is. Like we needed more examples.

Allen Ginsberg on Keats' "Negative Capability"

2010-08-13T20:19:00.001-04:00

The following is excerpted from the text of a speech, Meditation and Poetics, given by Allen Ginsberg at the New York Public Library in the winter of 1987, found in the collection of essays and assorted writings, Deliberate Prose.

The specific parallel to be drawn is to Keats' notion of "negative capability," written out in a letter to his brother. He was considering Shakespeare's character and asking what kind of quality went to form a man of achievement, especially in literature. "Negative capability," he wrote, "is when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching out after fact and reason." This means the ability to hold contrary or even polar opposite ideas or conceptions in the mind without freaking out--to experience contradiction or conflict or chaos in the mind without any irritable grasping after facts.

The really interesting word here is "irritable," which in Buddhism we take to be the aggressive insistence on eliminating one concept as against another, so that you have to take a meat-ax to your opponent or yourself to resolve the contradictions--as the Marxists took a meat-ax to their own skulls at one point, and as the neo-conservatives at this point may take a meat-ax to their own inefficient skulls. A current example might be the maniacal insistence that the Sandinistas are the force of evil and that our C.I.A. terrorists are patriots like George Washington. That's a completely polarized notion of the universe--the notion that everything is black and white.

Obviously, the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional is no longer a current example, but yet another mostly forgotten example of the kinds of douchebaggery that allow for the so-called "American Dream" to persist (if you've got three minutes to spare, check out George Carlin's thoughts on the "American Dream"). Still, it's an interesting and relevant perspective.

I pilfered the term "simultaneous bothness" from my anarcha-life partner a few years back, which is (among other things) some kind of synonymous with "negative capability" as described above. I make an active effort to stay informed, aware of the various structures / narratives / scientific models utilized by society at large and within the social sciences, open to new instances of such, and most importantly, absolutely fucking stoked on the notion of true uncertainty. While I may be "certain" within the confines of a particular structure / narrative / model, such as the rules of baseball, I claim little (if any) certainty about "Reality" and am immediately distrustful of anybody that claims to possess that certainty.

Typically, such people are either [a] trying to convince themselves or [b] trying to get one over on somebody. Brings to mind a quote that some random student put under their name in my senior yearbook: "the more you speak of your virtues, the quicker I count the silverware," or something to that effect.

More on the Free College Classes

2010-08-12T21:49:00.000-04:00

The first source I came across was this list of philosophical resources from Cengiz Erdem's blog / thesis, The Life Death Drives. From this, I came across this resource, apparently containing links to 250 college courses; this page is what led me to iTunes U. So far, I've downloaded:

Rosemary Joyce's Anthropology 114 from UC Berkeley (spring '10)
Carolyn Merchant's American Environmental and Cultural History (fall '06)
readings / discussion of poems from the Harlem Renaissance from East Tennessee State
Paul Fry's Introduction to Theory of Literature, from Yale

I'm currently listening to Joyce's Anthro 114 and downloading the following:

Steven Smith's Introduction to Political Philosophy, from Yale
Langdon Hammer's Modern Poetry, from Yale

These are full three credit hour semester classes. Some in video, some in audio, broken down by individual class. Obviously, you can't get credits doing this, but who cares? Free college courses seems exciting to me. I'm also excited about what this can mean, as it mainstreams; education is supposed to facilitate more than just economic viability, after all. I imagine it would be most effective to work on mainstreaming the knowledge and interest, to "create a market," so to speak. Could provide an increased ability for those in shitty financial circumstances to facilitate their ability to save $200 a class and just test out of general education and elective credits.

Once I get my financial aid, I plan to get a membership at the YMCA. I greatly anticipate the restructuring of my schedule in such a way to allow for regular exercise / education. I'm a bit of a music aficionado, but I really dig the notion of listening to interesting lectures while my fat ass gradually shrinks.

"Haruspicy" on AltDaily.com / Free College Classes

2010-08-12T19:49:00.000-04:00

Here in Hampton Roads, the unfortunate model of the modern city or something, we have the Pilot for our newspaper. Like most newspapers, it's often not very good, occasionally pretty cool, but that much more irritating for being the only option. In answer to this situation, two people set up AltDaily.com, an alternative news source focusing on Norfolk. The interesting thing about it is that it is managed by locals, populated by the (pretty consistently solid) writings of locals, and is geared toward community-building.

In line with this, AltDaily has recently begun showcasing local writing talents, in the non-journalistic sense. I am the first poet featured on the site. They published "Haruspicy," a piece from what will eventually be my second book, The God of Penguins. You can check it out here.

Also, on a largely unrelated note, I have discovered iTunes U. Free downloads of entire college courses, offered up by such schools as Yale, UC Berkeley, and East Tennessee State. From this, I found other schools that offer the same from their websites. Granted, you don't get college credits for listening to / watching the lectures, but it's a prime opportunity for self-education. I am excited.

Buying My Book

2010-08-08T03:13:00.000-04:00

I added a PayPal widget to the side panel of this blog, for those of you that would like to purchase a copy of my debut chapbook, Segue. It's $10 for locals, $14 if shipping is involved. If you aren't familiar with my stuff, I have three mp3s available for streaming on my ReverbNation and last.fm profiles. Soon, there should be a limited preview of it available on Google Books.

There's some stuff here already, and more will come. Pretty soon, I'll have a poem featured in the new literary column at AltDaily.com.

Also in the works, pictures from the trip to Humboldt County, California.

Alan Moore on conspiracies

2010-08-07T16:04:00.005-04:00

"Yes, there is a conspiracy, indeed there are a great number of conspiracies, all tripping each other up… the main thing that I learned about conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in the conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control, the truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control, the world is rudderless."

-Alan Moore

Poem: Paris, Pass the A1

2010-07-31T02:48:00.000-04:00

I'm back from California. It was awesome. More on that later (quite possibly, anyway). At the suggestion of a complete stranger, I'm posting the opening piece from my first book, Segue, published by the wonderful (and regrettably defunct) Destructible Heart Press. It's $10 for locals, $14 with s+h.

Feel free to post it elsewhere, so long as credit is given and you aren't making money off of it w/o giving me a good cut.

And now, for the poem.

Paris, Pass the A1

Sir Winston Churchill
chews a scotch-soaked cigar
over a plate of bones
and barbecue sauce.
Lizzie Borden just refilled
my iced tea.

I'm not kidding,
Siddhartha
is getting a plate
at the salad bar.

And I could be mistaken,
but it seems that
the manager here
is Helen of Troy.
There's a huge wooden horse
parked in a handicap space,
emanating the subtle
grunts and shuffles
of soldiers
fucking each other
like it's the last time
they'll ever eat steak.

Self / Nick Drake / Some Meta

2010-07-12T01:20:00.000-04:00

I’ve rediscovered Nick Drake, and am so happy for it. I’ll spare you the “so much potential!” spiel, feel free to scope the wiki if you’re interested in the man. The music he made in the ’60s and ‘70s is timeless, plain and simple.

I am also quite happy about two weeks worth of northern California to visit a very dear friend and many other cool people, quite a few of which I’ve never met. Leaving on Wednesday morning; don’t expect much (if any) output here from then until early August. I’ve effectively deconstructed the accidental constraints I had unknowingly placed on this blog; as such, the odds of me having nothing to say for extended periods of time are low.

I’ve been skimming through Steve Earnshaw’s Existentialism: A Guide for the Perplexed recently, to see what a different take on existentialism can stir up so many years later. The effects of this may well be evident in recent posts. Likewise with Christopher Butler’s Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction (from the very cool Oxford University Press series). Some discussion in the former on Sartre’s ‘of-itself’ and ‘for-itself’ got me thinking, in the context of the latter and all of the other paradigms I sail, on what the thinking self may be. I think the gap between the self that is and the self that is aware of self is evident of a lacking eloquence. I’ve got a fair amount of fleshing out to do with this idea, but it occurred to me that the perceiving self may not be a self at all, but the relevant totality (varying by individual) of society. This strikes me as some kind of predicated on my idea that self is a socialized construct, a consequence of language in the course of human evolution. It seems linked, given that the philosophical discourse on the subject of self has been mostly characterized by an emphasis on linguistics; I haven’t seen much of anything (prior to the postmodernists) that addresses the inherent assumptions that keep coming up. Self may well be the narrative by which society interprets the individual.

I don’t necessarily think that this is groundbreaking or whatever. Still fun.

What Is Humanity?

2010-07-09T03:42:00.000-04:00

It’s a big question, been coming up since we’ve been asking questions, best as I can tell. Started with philosophers, back when philosophers and scientists were the same thing (I'm looking at your obnoxious ass, Plato). It’s still the realm of philosophers and scientists, though they’re (practically speaking) two very distinct groups. Same with human nature, the soul, self: big philosophical questions, meant to understand ourselves as creatures that are apart from nature. We’ve got language, complex social structures, blah, blah, blah.

I challenge the notion. I know, it must come as a big shock. I can’t agree with the notion that we are apart from nature. In line with this, I challenge the existence of "human nature" (and not just because I think Lord of the Flies is one of the worst books ever written). Taking simultaneous nods from Nietzsche and Lao Tzu, it doesn’t really exist (in the sense that we view most things as existing). Everything that a fox does is in its nature; everything that every fox has ever done / is doing / will do is within the confines of “fox nature” (their nature being largely concerned with survival) As such, it’s kind of a stupid thing to name. There is no action, individually or collectively, in the entirety of the existence of our species that is counter to our “nature.” This isn’t to say that the manifestations of our “nature” aren’t worth exploring, just that there is no manifestation that is counter to our nature. The fact that we organize (or, most likely, are organized) via complex social structures does more to support this perspective than the “mainstream” perspective. The complexity causes us to periodically experience conflicting instincts and desires; emphasis is placed on our “physiological selves,” without due regard for the other evolved aspects of “self,” causing an incomplete picture.

‘Cause, really, “self” is a tricky concept. I’m of the mind that it’s just another (ultimately arbitrary) consequence of our evolution as a species, tied directly into the emergence of language, and its impact on culture (being a thing that homo sapiens do not have a monopoly on). Language developed as a survival mechanism, which could be said to have itself evolved in such a way that exacerbated culture. Language puts things in boxes, helps us to organize the universe in which we live into scientific models / narratives that help us to cope with the fact that our brains just aren’t as advanced as we like to think (in the greater context of said universe). The luxury afforded by new methods and manifestations of material culture allowed for some to specialize in behaviors that weren’t directly linked to our basic survival. As these things became normalized within our evolving culture(s), the standards for survival changed, given that we are social creatures. (i.e. - literacy, engagement in capitalism, Facebook) If society changes, so will the requirements to effectively survive. Language happened, became necessary, evolved, beget self, which also evolved into necessity. Now, I don’t believe that the intrinsic link between these two things means that a human must know a language to possess some variation / portion of “self,” but I think self-awareness in the way that we as humans celebrate was borne out of language. When we look at the curious absence of this trait in feral children, I think the assertion that “self” is an evolved trait that is passed on via socialization is a strong one (though I won’t argue that a physiological predisposition to self-awareness isn’t likely, though this is likely due to the aforementioned normalization on a long enough timeline).

But as has been implied throughout this, I view the distinction between physiological and social as a false dichotomy. I view pretty much all dichotomies that I’ve encountered as false; scientific models / narratives / concepts predicated on a set of rules as dictated by language (think of the rules of baseball). Obviously, a dichotomy is not the same as a set of differences; things can be different from each other without being opposed to each other. For there to be a human nature, there must be something that humans do that is counter to that nature, otherwise it doesn’t merit that name; it’s in the rules of language.

Getting back to the original point, “humanity” is just another concept that is predicated on language. It is the term used for that which comprises the non-physiological aspects of homo sapiens at large. It is the totality of material culture, philosophy, society, et cetera. The concept is founded on being apart from nature, on these non-physiological aspects of self somehow being above or autonomous of nature. It’s founded on the notion that other species completely lack these non-physiological aspects of existence.

Every stupid little thing, every great accomplishment, all of our convenient / frightening technology: it’s all a natural consequence of the evolution of our species. We’re just so convinced that our species is hot shit, and that everything we experience is somehow cooler than that which is experienced by other species, that we put anything we can about the human experience on a pedestal. You can’t peg it down, you can’t define it, ‘cause it’s a dynamic thing and we’re inside of it. The experiment is inherently flawed. It would take an objective observer, the likes of which cannot be of our species, to even attempt to peg it as a particular thing or another, and there’s a good chance than such an observer would probably screw up their interpretation of the perceivable facts the way we consistently have in our estimation of pretty much everything ever.

So, if it’s dynamic, if it’s beyond our ability to accurately define, if it’s predicated on false dichotomies / bad narratives, then it cannot be used as a foundation for other arguments. To appeal to a person’s humanity is to appeal to their (generally conflicting) instincts as an example of the species that has been dubbed homo sapiens. It’s an appeal to a convoluted socialized structure, the current consequence of the entirety of our existence as a species. It’s too big to mean anything, too weak to lean on, too arbitrary to emphasize. At best, it’s a useful fiction for compelling those that blithely accept such concepts to act in a way that seems reasonable within a particular context.

The definition of "human" is also relevant to the discussion. Whereas homo sapiens is typically the term for our physiological selves, allowing for the existence of non-physiological traits, within the scientific discourse, human is the term that is typically used for our non-physiological selves, allowing for the existence of our physiological traits. Sociopaths and child molesters are considered "inhuman." Acting in ways that are taboo, ways that are an affront to our every survival instinct (or at least a good majority of them), prompts the question of the acting individual's humanity, their status as a human. Nobody doubts that such individuals are homo sapiens.

So, if technology allowed for a homo sapiens to eschew their physiological form for something like the weird cult in Transmetropolitan or severe cybernetic enhancement, are they still human? After all, to be human is to possess more than simple physiological similarity to those designated as humans. What if we were able to program some software to be effectively human in all ways but physiology, including but not limited to subjective experience, language, self-awareness, involvement in the complex social structures, et cetera? What if these two things were to occur simultaneously, and be normalized the way that literacy, capitalism, and Facebook have been? Where does humanity fit in?

On a More Personal Note

2010-07-06T00:02:00.002-04:00

People screw up. It happens. Sometimes the consequences are massive, most of the time they're insignificant. If you boil ethics down to the simplest level, you're left with two perspectives: that an action is deemed unethical as a result of intent, or as a result of consequences. I know, there's a lot more to the study of ethics than just that, and I also know that there are terms / names, but I'm trying to keep this simple (and some kind of brief).

If a person had shitty intentions, no matter the consequences, I view the action as unethical. If a person had sound intentions, and acted in such a way that seems reasonable when their perspective is accounted for, I view the action as ethical. There is a law of unintended consequences: we as humans are too cognitively deficient to know all of the factors in play in the universe, and will make reasonable decisions that have really stupid consequences. It is what it is; I didn't do it, I don't like it, but there's no way around it. Now, if the consequences could have been reasonably predicted, things get weirder.

Likewise, things get a little murkier with lacking intentions; people acting on autopilot, allowing irrelevant things to color their perspective on a subconscious level (preconceived notions or external influences). The act itself, in my mind, is neither ethical or unethical; that designation is determined by what follows. 'Cause people screw up. We as humans are too cognitively deficient to know all of the factors at play in our minds, and will act in ways that seem entirely reasonable to us but are, in fact, really douchey.

The designation comes from whether or not the person in question owns their mistake. If they do, in whatever way is appropriate, the initial act remains neutral but the person has acted in an ethical manner. If they allow ego to take priority over being intellectually honest / decent, then the initial act becomes unethical.

I try not to be a dick, but I periodically fail in this endeavor. When I fail at not being a dick, whether or not there are consequences, I own it to the best of my ability. It won't happen until I realize that I was a dick, but I also try to be mindful of the fact that I can be a dick. I didn't pick my ethical position so my actions would become ethical, but instead strive to utilize the best methods I can conceive of. I strive to hone these methods.

The method isn't all that matters, but it matters more than any other two things; 'cause after all, if your method is sound, you won't fuck up near so much.

Independence Day

2010-07-04T22:58:00.004-04:00

As most anyone that’s talked to me for more than five minutes has figured out, I vehemently challenge the nationalistic narrative that we’re fed. Go out and ask any person celebrating Independence Day about the revolt against the British Empire, and you will be given bad history. Ask them why they’re waving their flags around, and you’ll get some meandering speech about “freedom.” Granted, history is a narrative itself, it's a scientific model, but the model that today commemorates is bad science.

Anyway, so I’m talking about freedom, within the confines of the nationalistic narrative. I think country musicians have effectively established that it isn’t “free” (whatever that means), but what exactly is it? What are we free from? What are we free to do? Of course, there’s the tried and true argument against the nationalistic “with us / against us” false dichotomy, but I’m not talking about that right now. Given that this narrative is predicated on the apparatus that has been dubbed the United States of America being a nation, I think the documents on which this nation was ostensibly founded are a good place to start. Your average fifth grader knows a good amount of what’s contained in the Bill of Rights (which, incidentally, is no more legally relevant than any other letter the “founding fathers” mailed out) and the Constitution; free speech, religion, guns, assembly, et cetera.

What inspired their rhetoric? Why did they embrace this particular system of governance? What compelled them to choose the particular rights found in the aforementioned documents? According to the nationalistic narrative, we were denied these rights by the British empire; it leaves out the part where we had just as much representation as any other colony, as well as the practice of salutory neglect, but the basic premise is true enough. The “founding fathers” were distrustful of government, and for good reason, hence the whole “checks and balances” deal. They wanted to fashion a new government that was predicated on the belief that government is a thing to be distrusted; governments engage in force and fraud against their people, so these dudes created a government that was tasked with the sole purpose of protecting the people from that force and fraud. Sure, the lives of the average citizen didn’t change all that much for the better, nor did the lives of Africans and African-Americans. It was orchestrated by people that, for all intents and purposes, were middle management; they were tired of being denied promotions (and all of the bounty they bring), so they got the workers to take down the board of directors. Sure, they had a lot of solid-ass philosophical points, but they were intellectually dishonest in their methods / rhetoric of replacing one unfair system with another unfair system.

But I digress. Nationalistic narrative. Yeah. So, basically, our “freedom” is protection from the government. Our “freedom” isn’t free, ‘cause we need to work our asses off to make sure that the government doesn’t cross those lines. That’s the whole fucking point of the nationalistic narrative: we’re so awesome ‘cause we fought off a totalitarian regime to earn some liberty and autonomy, and subsequently set up a system of governance that was intentionally difficult to abuse, because abuse is the nature of government.

Why, then, are we celebrating the military? Why are we celebrating the government? Why are we celebrating a handful of rich dickholes that sacrificed a bunch of poor people for their own profit? (By which I mean all of the well-to-do people that picked representatives, told them what to say, and sent ‘em to the Continental Congress; except the Quakers, they were cool). Why do we celebrate and honor those things that most represent what “the founding fathers” ostensibly opposed, that were the very inspiration for the legislating of these freedoms? You don’t even have to compare the nationalistic narrative to other historical narratives for it to fall apart; it contradicts itself when it’s sitting alone in a room.

So, I’ll honor the slaves that resisted force and fraud, the indigenous peoples that resisted force and fraud, the immigrants that resisted force and fraud, the workers that resisted force and fraud. I’ll celebrate the spirit of the narrative, not the letter of it. Fuck the “founding fathers” and the entire network of rich jerk-offs in the background, fuck the government, fuck the industrialists, fuck the colonialists.

This day, and the flag that so many people are waving, should remind us what the real enemy is, not deify it.

Questions

2010-06-13T01:43:00.004-04:00

For those that aren't aware, questions are not the same as assertions. I would ask that specifics be given in any answers. Feel free to answer one, some, or all.

What is the ethical difference between Hamas in regards to Israel and the U.S. Military in regards to most of the Middle East?

What is the ethical difference between Hamas in regards to Israel and Israel in regards to the Palestinians?

What is the ethical difference between the U.S. Military and the IDF?

What is the ethical difference between Palestinians that oppose Israeli policy via direct action / propaganda of the deed and Hamas?

What are the differences between marmalade, jelly, jam, and preserves?

What is the ethical difference between intellectual dishonesty in regards to Zionism and intellectual dishonesty in regards to anti-Zionism?

How (in)effective is Fatah in comparison to the Democrats?

How is the rabid dedication of most fundamentalist Christians to the state of Israel not spooky?

What is the ethical difference between fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and fundamentalist Zionists?

Uprising

2010-06-03T01:51:00.002-04:00

Likely the opening piece of The God of Penguins, the proto-manuscript that dreams of being a real boy.

--------------------

The votes are in,
Cowboy Boot Shot Glass
is the new governor
of Counter Between
Fridge and Sink.

Two coffee cups birthed
an artistic movement
reminiscent of early Kandinsky
and African cave paintings.
Tephra spills
from Mt. Rubbermaid’s
gaping maw, linoleum tarnished
by its caustic marrow.

Last week, Cheap Toaster
informed us that talk
of revolution flitters
among the flatware.
They’ve gathered stray
matches for a strike
on Living Room.

We haven’t seen
or heard from him since.

--------------------

Be sure to find my page(s) on Facebook, last.fm, GoodReads, ReverbNation, MySpace, and wherever the hell else I've set up a promotional page.

The God of Penguins

2010-05-23T00:08:00.004-04:00

Up to this point, I've mostly talked about politicalish issues. I don't feel like doing that right now. There's mostly bad news, and there ain't shit I can blog to change any of it.

While I was engaged in the two year process of revisions to Segue, my first book, a new project started brewing. My bipolar was hitting harder than ever, to the point that I actually sought out treatment. It was a pretty intense time, characterized by a lot of self-discovery, philosophical reexamination, and really fucked up symptoms. I struggled with the notion of getting on meds, and then with the new configuration of head noise that they brought about. Like so many other people, poetry was my outlet for the head noise. It released the pressure, put hallucinations and delusions in a meaningful context, kept me company during the weeks without sleep. Thus, the God of Penguins cycle was born.

It's been something like three or four years, and the project has expanded in scope and meaning. It's no longer a collection of accidentally surrealist pieces, but a treatise on mental illness. Then the concept of a loose narrative came about (partially inspired by the wonderful editor, poet, friend Adam Rubinstein's Freshwater Dredge and its larger mythological context). I discovered anarchist theory and sociology, prompting a far more extroverted perspective on the universe; this clarified the narrative. I moved into the Situationist International, Discordianism, and the post-left thing at large; this prompted a far more intense interest in history and did quite a bit to alter the way that I view the individual vs. the collective, what self is, and a whole bunch of other profound(ly uninteresting) philosophical perspectives. As it stands, The God of Penguins is something that will likely change as the writing progresses. I'm the driver, but it has the map. And it speaks in a very strange dialect.

Today was a milestone. The assorted drafts, poems, memories, hallucinations, and dreams have been collected into a PDF file that I'm calling the proto-manuscript. Some lines end midsentence. Some poems are loosely connected pieces from multiple revisions. About 40 or so are titled XXXXX, with a number at the end to differentiate them from each other. At least half don't have line breaks. A good number of them will likely be evicted from the cycle. It's in its infancy, but it is at its most coherent to-date. And I have contacted a handful of wonderful people to read through it and get back to me with whatever occurs to them. Two of the nine have already been sent out. I'm excited.

On the topic of the poetry, I've set up a band / author page on Facebook, Goodreads, last.fm, and ReverbNation, to accompany the MySpace page. If you're on any of those sites, look me up. There are mp3s of three pieces from Segue, which can also be found in the new ReverbNation widget on the side panel of my blog.

Also doing activist work. Still need to set up a Facebook page for the Virginia Workers Justice Center, and I'm hitting up the Norfolk chapter of Food Not Bombs tomorrow before the LOST series finale party.

Looking forward to summer.

On Joe Stack's Last Flight Into a Building

2010-02-19T02:00:00.001-05:00

Have you read the full statement put out by man who crashed plane into IRS office in Austin, Texas? From what I understand, it's being vilified by the left and right alike as the ramblings of a crazy person or whatever. My very conservative stepfather went on a "Fuck Fox News" rant because of this; he and I are in agreement that Joe Stack was totally lucid and pretty on-point with his critiques. My stepfather was particularly amused at how effectively Stack's note is confusing the talking heads; they pretty much all agree with at least half of what he says, but have their heads too far up their asses for intellectual honesty.

Sure, I have critiques. While there is a time and a place for all methods of resistance, violence should always be on the bottom of the list. Apparently, this dude planned it in such a manner to minimize deaths, showing that he understood this. I don't know if I'm qualified to say for certain if his final act was or wasn't ethical, nor do I necessarily grant anybody that kind of ability. While violence should always always always be called into question, it is not always wrong. Think about it: working within the confines of a corrupt system will never change the system, only provoke adaptation. No power structure will include a method for its own deconstruction, just as a cop will not arrest himself for assault when he's beating the shit out of you for peaceful protest. The best we can hope for is reform. That's not to say that reform doesn't also have it's place, it certainly does. But when change within the confines of a moral code largely dictated by that which is immoral, when a situation kills innocent people every day as a result of working in the way that it is structured to do so, is it necessarily always unethical if people are hurt in attempts to circumvent said power structure in an attempt to fight it?

Of course, when violent methods of resistance are engaged in by a drastic minority, the violence does more to give a power structure "legitimate" reasons to further curtail resistance at large. All it takes is one kid to throw a rock 'fore a hundred protesters are descended upon by a battalion of fully-armed riot pigs. It's tricky, which is exactly why any violent methods of resistance must be tactical as well as symbolic if there is to be the slightest chance of progress. Make it count or don't bother, otherwise the best we can hope for is status quo. He fucks up in thinking that this sort of action is somehow new or different; it's simply not as common as all of the other methods of resistance that have been rendered largely ineffective at best, counter-productive at worst.

I'm not making assertions per se, just asking some questions that merit consideration. After all, if we can't challenge our own positions on things, are we all that dedicated? If we don't question ourselves at least twice as often as those we disagree with, can our assertions really be taken seriously?

The Tonight Show / NBC / Jay Leno

2010-01-19T22:31:00.002-05:00

It's simple, really.

[1] Jay Leno is a pompous ass, and he's never been all that funny.
[2] Neither can be said for Conan O'Brien.
[3] Conan will survive.
[4] It's just television, people. It's the spectacle. It doesn't fucking matter.

Headline Round-Up

2009-11-08T14:11:00.000-05:00

I want it too, but…...
Apparently, with the health care bill as it stands, individuals that don't have insurance can be hit with hefty fines. I came across this bit of clarification that's pretty important, but I still don't completely understand, so it would be pretty awesome if someone could further clarify

Who Gets Blamed for Maine Losing Gay Marriage?
A pretty solid analysis of the unfortunate turn of events from RaceWire, comparing and contrasting with the passing of Proposition 8 in CA last year.

1491
A really interesting historical / anthropological / archaeological bit about the Americas before the Age of Exploration, and just how far off the mark our Eurocentric historiographical perspectives put us.

Homeland Security Sees Deplorable N.Y.C. Immigrant Jail as 'A Good Model'
Self-explanatory.

Goldstone report: UN votes for probe into Gaza war crimes
It's about fucking time.

Native Leaders Speak to Washington
Further analysis of the Tribal Nations Conference that I've mentioned in a couple of recent posts.

And then here's our democracy in action…
The blatantly misogynistic behavior of the GOP during health care reform debates yesterday isn't at all indicative of the misogyny that isn't at all a motivation behind the Stupak amendment.

World's Largest Bran Flake
Now all we need is raisins the size of oranges.

Big bank break-up idea gains ground in Congress
A proposed bill that addresses the obvious issue of companies that are too big to fail without causing a massive clusterfuck.

Headline Round-Up

2009-11-06T12:57:00.000-05:00

Fed’s Search of Twittering Anarchist Upheld
Fuck civil rights!

Reactions to Obama's meeting with Native American governments
Called it: "…I see the same old carrots dangling before the cart. When there is real action on the issues constantly facing Indian Country I might feel more encouraged."

Victimless Crimes
Don't worry, the Pittsburgh G-20 convention was the first use of an intranational police force to quash dissent; they won't make the same mistakes next time.

France's Sarkozy launches controversial national identity debate
Funny, given that he's not really French.

Mass shooting at US army base
I understand why, but I'm always a little uncomfortable when the government and media are lying to us.

The Right to Live Again
San Bernardino, CA decides that it likes drug addicts with no options.

Goldman, Fed, Citi Getting Preferential Allotments of H1N1 Vaccine
This is happening under the watch of the Obama administration.

Headline Round-Up

2009-11-05T19:01:00.001-05:00

Obama endorses military commissions for Guantánamo detainees
Excerpt: "While the new law addresses some of the defects of the military commissions, it fails to bring the tribunals in line with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project.

Sesame Street — 40 years of laughs, joy, and communism?
The Right is still stupid. Surprise, surprise.

Obama pledge to Native Americans
"It is the first time in US history that [each of the 564 federally recognised American Indian tribes] will all meet a sitting president." This is all well and good, but I don't anticipate this resulting in much change.

Pelosi Arrested Us for Asking for Healthcare
Just another friendly reminder that Nancy Pelosi and her peoples are not our friends.

Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.
The consensus among smart people that I've talked to (personally and vicariously) is that it's not gonna go through. Still, I've gotta wonder what the fuck Obama and his peoples are trying to do here.

Tortuga House Update: Pennsylvania Drops All Charges Against Madison & Wallschlager for Twittering
Just in case you missed it: context. Good to see that this particular attempt at government repression failed; shame that it's the exception to the rule.

Indigenous Uranium Forum Denounces Mining, Militarization, and Hate Crimes in Indian Country
Excerpt: Indigenous Peoples from Bolivia, Alaska, and throughout Indian country gathered at the 7th Southwest Indigenous Uranium Forum and told the same story: Uranium mining is a hate crime in Indian country.

Ten Things You Can Do to Reduce Incarceration
Self-explanatory.

News Round-Up!

2009-06-30T02:21:00.001-04:00

Obama holds gay pride reception, vows to overturn 'unjust laws'
I'm of four minds on the issue: [1] is that it's about fucking time, dude. [2] is that this is probably still too soon; to maintain these rights, enough people need to back them. I'm wary that pushing it too hard too soon will do more harm to the movement in the long term, but I don't plan on marrying any men, so I kind of have the luxury to say that. [3] is that we should just abolish "marriage" as a legal institution, and give everyone free choice from various civil union arrangements, in tangent with an overhaul of the tax system. [4] is that we should stop caring about reform and smash the state. I think [1] is the loudest of the four, at the moment.

Short fuse; 50,000 workers on the streets & 50 factories burning in Bangladesh
While this could prove short-sighted on the part of the workers, solely within the confines of the unfortunate context of capitalism, but I support the hell out of the workers making it damned clear that they're the ones keeping the machine going, and they can be the ones to stop it at a moment's notice.

Activist Accused of “Advocating Literature and Materials Which Advocate Anarchy”
More thought-crime, plain and simple. Tell me again about this Constitutional freedom of speech. About how we're too "enlightened" in the U.S. for such political repression. It's kind of quaint.

Two years
White pedophile adopts black children. Nobody cares. But racism ended back in January, right?

Obama contemplates Executive Order for detention without charges
Just a friendly reminder, he's just a really nice guy that works for the slightly less douchey half of the Two-Headed Capitalist Party. He's the President of a corrupt system, and no matter how decent he is, he will do corrupt things. He will grow accustomed to the culture of power, grow desensitized to what would get any of us "normal folk" jailed or mauled by an angry mob.

A Note on Cultural Relativism and White Guilt

2009-06-29T02:52:00.001-04:00

In October last year, al-Shabab ordered a 13-year-old girl to be stoned to death in public in the southern city of Kismayo.

She was accused of adultery after reporting she had been raped by three men.

(source)

Cultural relativism doesn't excuse this. Sure, it's fringe. Sure, Somalia has been fucked up for a long time due to a bunch of different reasons. That does not excuse this kind of shit.

This notion that other cultures can't be criticized isn't borne of a solid grasp on privilege. It's borne of white guilt.

Fuck white guilt. If you feel guilty, you're missing the point.

A note of appreciation from the rich

2009-06-27T18:13:00.003-04:00

(shamelessly stolen from scroogle.org, via twentythree press)

Let's be honest: you'll never win the lottery.

On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you'll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That's because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let's face it — you're a member of the working caste. Sorry!

As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That's why we're so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity" in America.

Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it's already occupied by us — and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.

Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!

You also probably don't have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you're also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to "break out of the mold."

Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against.... We continually push your wages down by invoking "foreign competition," "the law of supply and demand," "national security," or "the bloated federal deficit." We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as "elections." Happily, you haven't a clue as to what's really happening — instead, you blame "Aliens," "Tree-hugging Environmentalists," "Niggers," "Jews," Welfare Queens," and countless others for your troubled situation.

We're also very pleased that many of you still embrace the "work ethic," even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don't know much about work, but we're sure glad you do!

Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don't know that. In fact, you can't even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that's probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system — robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.

So we'd truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Thanks so much for "knowing your place" — without even knowing it!

links

2009-06-15T17:55:00.000-04:00

Neo-Nazis are in the Army now

Chicago Police attack Queers in Boystown; four arrests, many injuries

Werther

2009-05-20T01:47:00.000-04:00

"The human race is but a monotonous affair. Most of them labour the greater part of their time for mere subsistence; and the scanty portion of freedom which remains to them so troubles them that they use every exertion to get rid of it. Oh, the destiny of man!"

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. The Sorrows of Young Werther, 1774.

Piracy: What You're Not Being Told

2009-04-20T00:26:00.001-04:00

My prior post on the "situation" regarding piracy in the Gulf of Aden, apparently, wasn't very clear. I suppose a litany of f-bombs isn't exactly the most effective method of communication. While I still won't shy from the fuck-word, I'll try to temper my incendiary rhetoric with plainly stated facts.

First, one must understand that the Somali pirates are not one cohesive group. It's not an organized crime syndicate that hates mom's apple pie. Some of the pirates work for Al-Shabaab, which translates as "The Youth," whom are most notable for their status as militant Islamic dominionists trying to take over Somalia. Some are opportunist pricks that either act alone or work for the kind of douchebags that make lots of money off of the poaching of endangered species, human trafficking, and other such nasty shit. Many, if not most, are generally known as the Somali Coast Guard. These are the guys that took the Ukrainian vessel with all of those tanks and such, which were totally not at all destined for Kenya, from which they would never have been smuggled into Sudan for use in continuing the genocide that isn't really happening. Anything you read about the pirates that does not clearly distinguish is absolutely not to be trusted, as it's dishonest and/or uninformed. Most of the pirates, no matter where they fall in those categories, are between the ages of 17 and 23.

To understand the Somali Coast Guard, one must know some backstory. A good majority of people in Somalia lived off of fishing. It was pretty much the only thing that most folks had going for them. This is largely due to centuries of colonialism and neo-colonialism at the hands of the self-styled "First World," which also served to corrupt their culture in such a manner that has rendered many young children proficient at using AK-47s, most of which came from the old Soviet block. After the government fell in the '90s, various (mostly European) private corporations were sending medical waste, toxic waste, and, yes, nuclear waste to the Gulf of Aden. It's speculated that the Italian mafia was pretty heavily involved in this, but I'm not 100% on that bit right now. So, all of this nasty shit in their water killed a lot of fish and poisoned a lot more; this results in less food, less money, and a serious problem with rampant illnesses that have killed quite a few people. In tangent with this, in other parts of the Gulf of Aden (which is fucking huge, so ya' know), private corporations were illegally overfishing their waters. So we've got a bunch of starving, dying people with old Russian and U.S.American weapons, some fishing boats, and nothing else to lose. So they hooked up with some militias and warlords, as we in the "First World" call them (but they're heros and freedom fighters when we like them) to take matters into their own hands. "First World" nations have been far more kind to the corporation than those that the corporation exploits since the emergence of the 16th century trading companies, so there's no chance in hell that they would suddenly grow an intellectually honest conscience and put a stop to things. So this Somali Coast Guard goes after ships that look suspicious, make some good money off of ransom, and recognize an opportunity.

Now, I'm not going to deny the existence of selfish douchebags. There are more than a few "warlords" enjoying the profits. There are just as many, if not more of these "warlords" that have the support of their people. Think of it more like a patron system; the "warlords" funnel this money into their areas, building infrastructure, bringing in food and medical supplies, increasing education, and otherwise doing what needs to be done for the good of the people. The existence of the selfish douchebags cannot be used to discredit the pirates at large; every group of people of any size that come together for any reason at all will have a couple of assholes that make everyone else look bad. I call this the Law of Douchebags. If all pirates are criminals, so are all C.E.O.s, and when you consider how much more harm those C.E.O.s cause, we should kill them all first, right? Kill all of the politicians, activists, teachers, cab drivers, cops, pizza delivery drivers, and everybody on MySpace. Incidentally, the contents of the Ukrainian vessel were relinquished to the Somali Coast Guard, and were subsequently given to the Sudanese resistance to the genocide. People are killing the fuck out of them, they could seriously use some tanks and missile launchers.

When you put this in the context of the labor movements throughout the world in the late 19th / early 20th centuries, the Golden Age of Piracy (or Pirate Wars) of the late 16th / early 17th century (of which the jihadist Barbary Corsairs were not a part), the "Public Enemies" period of John Dillinger, and pretty much everything else ever, it should be assumed that the media and government alike are not only fibbing about things, but probably doing so deliberately. There's also the distinct possibility of murder (Haymarket Massacre, Sacco & Vanzetti). While I cannot divulge my source, I can say with 100% certainty that what we were told about the killing of those three pirates by snipers by U.S. Navy SEALs was absolute bullshit. Before the story broke on the news, a person whom is in such a position to know such things let slip that they sent frogmen to attack the boat from underneath while the still-living pirate was on a Navy vessel for "negotiation." It is on this same authority that I say that this captain's life meant precisely dick to the U.S. government. Fitting with history, one life is worth losing when stating to everyone that You Do Not Fuck With Capitalism. That dude is lucky that he wasn't inadvertently killed by U.S. troops.

When you consider that which has been done to nations such as Somalia since long before we chopped these regions into nations by us as the "First World," what ethical right do we have to pass judgment? Consider the classic story relayed by St. Augustine in City of God, in which Alexander the Great captures a pirate. He asks the pirate something along the lines of "who the hell do you think you are being a jerk on the seas?" The pirate responds with something akin to "who the hell do you think you are doing the same on land? I do it myself and I'm a robber, but you do the same shit with a whole fleet and you get to be an emperor? Get bent." Now, the ransom is paid by insurance companies whom are reimbursed by premiums which are paid by the shipping companies that pass the added cost along to those that have things to ship. Of course, they pass that cost to their employees and customers, but that's nothing new. The people on top have been screwing the people below forever; it's just business as usual. These companies are all propped up by the "First World." Those ships are global capital. The Gulf of Aden is the most direct route for the ruling class to take when exploiting everyone else to varying degrees, and still the most cost effective route. Global capital is the thing that has fucked Somalia up so bad in the past 15 or so years. Um, 500 or so years, rather. We as the people in the "First World" are those that are the least blatantly exploited; we're the fish swimming under the belly of a shark, nibbling on the bits and pieces of chocolate in plantations worked by child slaves and everything else made by enslaved Tibetan monks and children in China that fall our way. We're happy, the shark is happy, and the fish that get eaten were terrorists anyway, so who the fuck cares? What ethical right do we have to pass judgment? Employ some cultural relativism; the threat of violence is pretty much all they have. We have privileges that allow us to commit various acts of resistance and selfishness without needing that threat. We cannot honestly hold them to the same standards, because they do not have the same circumstances. Back to St. Augustine's story, what if the pirate is robbing from the emperor instead of people? The whole Robin Hood thing, ya' know?

Some people are griping about how some of the ships have aid. Really? Is it clearly posted on the side of the ships? If it was, wouldn't it likely be a ploy to save on insurance premiums? Ships rarely ever contain one thing. Saying that a ship contains aid is sort of like saying that a convenience store contains beer. Sure, but it also has candy, porn, batteries, shitty sandwiches, and air fresheners shaped like pine trees. A ship with aid looks like a ship with Ukrainian tanks looks like a ship with cheaply manufactured clothing or car parts. Anyway, the vast majority of aid rarely ends where we want it to. Most of it gets hoarded by corrupt douchebags, with bits skimmed off the top by every hand that touches it along the way, and occasionally sold on the black market for exorbitant prices. Anybody that's involved in policy or a 200-level sociology class knows this, so we really shouldn't kid ourselves with righteous indignation to justify an ill-informed opinion that was shaped by those whom stand to profit from you agreeing with whatever they tell you.

The Somali Coast Guard haven't really been all that violent, really. They hadn't killed anyone. Aside from the fact that even some of "those savages" can recognize that murder isn't exactly the cool thing to do, corpses don't fetch much of a ransom. It is in the direct personal interests of the pirates to not harm anyone. Most of 'em also know that the people on the ships don't own what's being shipped, have little interest in it, and are likely grossly underpaid by their rich bosses. Don't send in trained killers right off the bat. You don't send in SWAT as soon as you hear that a bank is being robbed, you negotiate. And including a "you will be arrested" clause is not effective negotiation.

I think this is long enough, and I think my points are clear enough. Anyway, it's late, I'm tired, and I've got a fairly early morning.

Comments on the Piracy in the Gulf of Aden

2009-04-14T12:50:00.001-04:00

Fuck those Navy Seals and fuck Obama. Fuck the Democrats for sounding like a bunch of chest-thumping capitalist GOP-voting motherfuckers.

Here's a cursory glance at what's really going on with the piracy:
Johann Hari: You Are Being Lied to About Pirates
Pirates seen as not interested in raising violence

And even those two articles miss some pretty important parts of the picture.

Since when is it "good leadership" to have trained experts kill a handful of desperate fishermen striking back at those whom are responsible for their desperation with a couple of guns that they really don't want to use to begin with? Since when do "negotiations" hinge on the arresting of these fishermen so they can be "brought to justice"? Do you want justice? Arrest the motherfuckers that have been illegally overfishing Somali waters. Arrest the motherfuckers that have been dumping toxic waste off the coast of Somalia. Arrest the Islamofascist douchebags trying to impose a theocratic dictatorship in Mogadishu. Arrest the gov't PR people and the media that spread pro-capitalist propaganda.

By the way, the ransom money? Most of it is going to the building of infrastructure in northern Somalia. Food, medical care, education, et cetera. Does that sound like terrorism to you? Does that sound like a big fucking deal that we need to send in armed professionals to kill?

Fuck all.

A Friendly Reminder

2008-08-02T04:13:00.003-04:00

Webster's Dictionary is not the end-all and be-all resource for everything, ever.

Racism = power + prejudice. I don't care what the dictionary says. Look up "fibromyalgia" or "anarcho-communism," and I'm sure it'll feed you some oversimplified bullshit, with little resemblance to what doctors or students of political science say, respectively.

Anybody can be prejudiced. To be prejudiced is to have irrational, unfounded, uninformed, critical perceptions, without (proper) examination of the facts.

Only people that pass as the "dominant" race can be racist. Reverse racism does not exist, I don't care how uncomfortable you are when non-whites or white allies discuss race. There are still more white people, they still make more money, they still wield more power in government and private industry, they're still less likely to get hassled by the police, they're still more likely to have connections to people that can provide opportunities, they're still more likely to get hired, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Joke or not, racist is racist, and racism is not cool. Even if you're a white ally with a sense for the ironic, you run the risk of losing control of your words once they've left your mouth; the person that hears it may find their racist tendencies further legitimized. We all have a responsibility for what we put out for the world to digest, even if it trickles out through one conversation with one person. Intent doesn't matter, people interpret things in manners congruent with their pre-existing world view. Remember this, and consider if you could be doing the cause a disservice by forgetting that not all white people have read the same shit as you.

People of color experience racism on a daily basis. White people benefit from racism, except in cases such as botched affirmative action, which while not rampant, is used as justification for such ludicrous ideas as "white people are becoming the minority!" (we are occasionally the collateral damage of our own racist society). Given that white people largely benefit from what affects non-white people, it's safe to assume that people that experience it probably have a better idea of what is and isn't racist. You know, since it informs their very existence in society. White people? We just get irrationally defensive and reactionary whenever our privilege is accidentally alluded to. Sure, some small segment of minorities may play "the race card" disingenuously, but it's akin to the handful of men raped per year compared to the hundreds of women. It's an intellectually lazy distraction from the larger issue, and we as white people aren't properly equipped to know conclusively. Leave it up to minority communities to call out their own, while us white folk focus on the racism of our similarly melanin-challenged.

Here's a question or three: can you, in good conscience, accept respect from a person that wouldn't give the same respect to your non-white friends? If a friend of many years said something disgustingly bigoted, would you risk the friendship by calling them out? Why or why not?

Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you!

2008-07-29T17:24:00.000-04:00

(this was lifted from New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists)

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it's one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist - you just don't realize it.

Let's start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered "yes", then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don't believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don't those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it's necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It's all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent - which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else's, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered "yes", then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don't believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person's particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist - even if you don't realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free - and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don't really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered "yes", then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today's society - at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don't think there's anything that can be done about it, or anyway - and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist - anything that won't end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren't true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society - that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

"It doesn't matter who started it." "Two wrongs don't make a right." "Clean up your own mess." "Do unto others..." "Don't be mean to people just because they're different." Perhaps we should decide whether we're lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we're willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don't make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we're always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other's needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that's improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there's no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That's why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn't really work that way. That's why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift to one's children one could possibly give?

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered "yes", then, well, it looks like you aren't an anarchist after all. But if you answered "no', then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can't even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we're confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles-which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

[written by author and anthropologist, David Graeber]

Other resources:

Wikipedia portal for Anarchism: Wiki's got a surprisingly thorough treatment of anarchism. I've probably given a few days of my life to it, and I've hardly scratched the surface.

libcom.org: A library of anarchist texts, classic and modern, as well as resources and news.

U.S. Army Covers Up Brutal Rape (from colorofchange.org)

2008-07-28T14:03:00.002-04:00

LaVena Johnson was a 19 year old private in the Army, serving in Iraq, when she was raped, murdered, and her body was burned--by someone from her own military base. Despite overwhelming physical evidence, the Army called her death a suicide and has closed the case.1

For three years, LaVena's parents have been fighting for answers. At almost every turn, they've been met with closed doors or lies. They've appealed to Congress, the one body that can hold the military accountable. But, as in other cases where female soldiers have been raped and murdered and the Army has called it suicide, Congress has failed to act.

Will you join Mr. and Mrs. Johnson in calling on Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee, to mount a real investigation into LaVena Johnson's death and the Army's cover-up2? Will you ask your friends and family to do the same?

http://www.colorofchange.org/lavena/?id=2059-480458

From the beginning, LaVena's death made no sense as a suicide. She was happy and had been talking with friends and family regularly3--nothing indicated she could be suicidal. And when the Johnsons received her body, they noticed signs that she had been beaten.4 That was when they started asking questions.

After two years of being denied answers and hearing explanations that made no sense, the Johnsons received a CD-ROM from someone on the inside. It contained pictures of the crime scene where LaVena died and an autopsy showing that she had suffered bruises, abrasions, a dislocated shoulder, broken teeth, and some type of sexual assault. Her body was partially burned; she had been doused in a flammable liquid, and someone had set her body on fire. A corrosive chemical had been poured in her genital area, perhaps to cover up evidence of rape.5

Still the Army sticks by their story. They refuse to explain the overwhelming physical evidence that LaVena was raped and murdered and continue to claim that she killed herself.

For many Black youth, and working class young people of every race, the military is seen as an option for securing a better future. LaVena came from a deeply supportive family, and while the military wasn't her only option, she was attracted by its promise to help her pay for a college education and the opportunity to travel around the world. She also thought that by joining she could continue her lifelong commitment to serving other people in need. She made a decision to serve in the military, with all its risks, and expected respect and dignity in return.

LaVena's death is part of a disturbing pattern of cases where female soldiers have been raped and killed, and where the military has hidden the truth and labeled the deaths suicides.6,7 In virtually all cases, Congress has been slow to investigate or hold the military accountable in any way. Unfortunately, most families simply don't have the resources, time, and psychological strength to push back.

We can help the Johnsons, and other families, by holding Congress accountable in the LaVena Johnson case and by demanding it investigate the pattern of cover-ups by the military.

Please take a moment to join those calling on Congressman Waxman to investigate the cover-up of LaVena Johnson's death:

http://www.colorofchange.org/lavena/?id=2059-480458

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, Clarissa, Andre, Kai, and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
July 28th, 2008

References:

1. "The cover-up of a soldier's death?" LavenaJohnson.com, March 6, 2007
http://www.lavenajohnson.com/2007/03/cover-up-of-soldiers-death.html

2. "Is There an Army Cover Up of Rape and Murder of Women Soldiers?" CommonDreams.org, April 28, 2008
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/28/8564/

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. "Suicide or Murder? Three Years After the Death of Pfc. LaVena Johnson in Iraq, Her Parents Continue Their Call for a Congressional Investigation," Democracy Now!, June 23, 2008.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/23/suicide_or_murder_three_years_after

6. See reference 2.

7. "2 Years After Soldier's Death, Family's Battle Is With Army," New York Times, March 21, 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/mzcvh

Other References:

"Justice for Pfc. LaVena Johnson," DailyKos, June 30, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/5bh73v

"Rapists in the Ranks, Los Angeles Times, March 31, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/2z2c8l

Weighing in on the Obama / Clinton issue

2008-06-12T14:34:00.004-04:00

There's no denying that Hillary Clinton's campaign has acted in a consistently racist manner. I think it's safe to say that it wasn't all unintentional. I think it's just as safe to say that some of it was, not that the lack of intent in any way, shape, or form mitigates racism. The same holds true for sexism, which Obama is guilty of, though not near to the extent. Both have directly benefited from their irrespective -isms, with responses ranging from smug silence to cursory denunciation to calls of what basically amounts to the mythical 'reverse-racism.' Both candidates have consistently failed on these matters, and are still doing so. As a result of my own male privilege, I was unaware until last night of Obama's sexism, and the reasoning behind actions of many feminists in response to it. Violet is right. As with so many other things, the Democratic party has been pretty damned useless, and have (successfully) gotten away with it by pointing at the GOP. It's a gamble, but it's the best odds women have had to force their representatives to do something really novel: their fucking jobs as representatives.

Of course, the insane, apologist bullshit isn't helping their cause. Apparently, many of Clinton's strongest supporters missed this very eloquent open letter from a disenchanted white feminist or the loss of some of the sharpest feminists from their cause. NEWSFLASH! Oppression Olympics don't help anyone. Your gender / race does not bestow a Get Out of Privilege Free card, so stop contributing to the racism / sexism, be it saying things, repeating things said by others, justifying things said by others, or allowing others (in your camp or not) to say things unchecked. Just fucking stop it, already.

For all of the very true things that Clinton's most vehement supporters want to deny, she does deserve some respect. While she's not the first female presidential candidate, she's the first to have a serious shot, and will likely be a point of inspiration for quite a while, and rightly so. Aside from the requisite number of delegates for DNC nomination, all of the respect given to Obama for his recent accomplishments apply across the board. Obviously, as an anarchist of sorts, I don't care much for either of their policies, and I don't grant them carte blanche to be sexist / racist by dint of their accomplishments, they have both accomplished, and their supporters need to recognize this. If the rift in the party grows too large, McCain will get the nod, and everyone can pretty much agree on that equating to a whole lot of suck. Reform may be a four letter word, but the chance of far more reform than we've seen in almost half a century sure beats the hell out of handing the most powerful nation on the planet to that piece of shit.

Here's my suggestion, as a person that considers Clinton the inferior candidate by dint of her policies, past, and personality (I can't stand it when men are that kind of asshole, and I won't accept it from her because of her gender): pull all of your heads out of your asses, look around, and come together on the issues that will get the man elected. Force him to take a much stronger stance on women's issues, force him to enact realistic economic policies instead of short-sighted pandering that falls somewhere between useless and a really bad idea. Figure out what's important to groups with different agendas, individuals with different priorities, and push him to legitimately see to their concerns, as well as yours. You want to keep Roe vs. Wade on the books? You want to make the Supreme Court less frightening? You want out of Iraq? You want better healthcare? You want to overturn all of Bush's executive orders and presidential directives? You want to scale back this nation's imperialist foreign policy?

If you want Obama in office, stop ignoring his fuck-ups, stop talking shit, seriously consider where Clinton supporters are coming from, and work to see that their priorities are met. If you want Clinton in the White House... well, it's not gonna happen in any capacity beyond guest, at least not this year. But if you'll take legitimate effort on behalf of Obama to address your concerns, stop ignoring Clinton's fuck-ups, stop talking shit, seriously consider where Obama supporters are coming from, and use the very real leverage you have to get what you want. After all, that's how this process is supposed to work. Well, at least that's what they told me in 8th grade civics.

Many Apologies / Stuff About My Life

2008-06-10T12:39:00.006-04:00

It's been a while since I updated. I apologize for this. I was evicted illegally from a situation that did not allow for full time work, so I was broke. My roommate had just left for a three month pilgrimage to Israel, which made it that much more difficult of a scenario. Enter my old man, with whom I have a dotted history. He saves my ass, we make an arrangement (the details of which, and circumstances responsible for, I'd rather not divulge here), and he decided to back out of our deal after two months because of a tirade I've grown weary of. This was about a month ago. At this point, I'm homeless, unemployed / unemployable, broke, couch-surfing / crashing in a tent, and borrowing a 300mhz iBook from a friend to hijack other peoples' wifi. It's functioning until I track down a decent Mac laptop of my own for $300 or less, but everything takes forever on this dinosaur.

Now, I'm not complaining. I'm happier than I've been in a while, I'm starting college this fall, and I've got people that love me and have my back. I'm able to get by for the time being, take care of my basic priorities, and not mooch off of my friends and the family that I still talk to.

Be all that as it may, I haven't been in a situation to stay up-to-date with the outside world, or blog about what interesting bits I stumbled across in random conversations. I'm hoping to change this. I've got a half-dozen pieces already brewing in my head.

But, yeah. Shit went pear-shaped, I've had to deal with immediate reality, and projects such as this have suffered for it. Again, no complaints, it is what it is, but I do apologize and I hope to get back into the swing of things very soon. Hopefully, I won't use this tag very often.

Love for everyone.

OH NOES! MEN KISS ON TV!

2008-04-30T16:51:00.003-04:00

(borrowed from stoneself; please post elsewhere)

from the christian right afa:

Procter & Gamble has resumed using explicit, open-mouth homosexual kissing in their soap opera, "As the World Turns." P&G decided to include this type of content as a commitment to "diversity." P&G stopped showing such scenes some months ago, but has now decided to again help promote the homosexual agenda which includes homosexual marriage.

Gay activists are hopeful that the P&G effort will desensitize viewers to the homosexual lifestyle and help make the unhealthy and immoral lifestyle more acceptable to society, especially to children and youth.

View a scene [link removed] from the April 23, 2008 episode by P&G. WARNING – content is repulsive!

"As the World Turns" is owned and controlled completely by P&G. No network made this decision. P&G alone made the decision to support the homosexual agenda.

i could careless about as the world turns itself. but this crap by the afa needs to be stopped.

here's something simple you can do. please do it.

P&G is conducting a phone poll to see if people are for or against the Luke/Noah storyline on As The World Turns. Even if you don't watch the show, please a moment to thwart homophobic bigotry. The poll is completely automated. You don't have to talk to anyone. And it takes all of a second to register your opinion.

Call 1-800-331-3774. Press #1 to continue in English (or #2 for Spanish) (you may or may not get that question, so listen to the menu). Then select the option to answer the ATWT poll, please support the Luke/Noah storyline.

Spread this around

2008-04-16T16:30:00.000-04:00

10 Reasons Why McCain Sucks

2008-04-12T04:59:00.004-04:00

I lifted this, pretty much verbatim, from my friend, Emma. She gave permission, of course, and she was sober when she did such. I could likely go on for quite a while about all of the other reasons I can't stand the guy, but these are sufficient enough.

John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws. [link #1] [link #2]
According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi." [link #1] [link#2]
His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban. [link]
McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned." [link]
The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill. [link #1] [link #2]
He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations. [link #1] [link #2]
Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." [link #1] [link #2]
McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates. [link #1] [link #2]
McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult." [link #1] [link #2] [link #3]
He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year. [link]

I can't imagine anyone reading this really needing this information to determine their own vote, unless I've got some of those misogynistic / racist jerk-offs that'll vote for his evil ass before they'll see a woman / black in office.

I don't like any of the candidates, but keeping this motherfucker out of office is enough to get my anti-authoritarian ass out to vote. The more of us that do, no matter how much we may hate to legitimize the process or violate the fundamental basics of liberty (trust me, I feel dirty just typing this), the harder it will be for the bastards to rig the election (if it happens).

If you happen to know anybody high enough to vote for him, do send them this info. If nothing else, steal their battery and slash their tires so they can't drive to the polls. Mix some Xanax in with their morning coffee or something.

From the Inside Looking Out

2008-04-11T01:02:00.004-04:00

[this is a recent U.S.-centric post from a collaborative blog that I am no longer affiliated with]

Most of us share a common perception of society, a common place from which we view the world. No matter where we land on the political spectrum, no matter what class we were born into / put into / worked into as a result of shit luck.

We see the world from a place of white male heteronormativity. We don't consider our race, but the race of Others. Most of us are Americans. Some of you are African Americans. Some of you are Latin / Mexican Americans. Some of you claim European descent as the prefix to your citizenship, despite the fact that such distinctions have been of little-to-no consequence since the quashing of the socialist / anarchist labor movements of the early twentieth century (the myriad European Americans were united by class as functionally white).

The buying habits, musical tastes, fashion, behavior, arbitrary physical features, gender, circumstances, and reactions to them are views against a "control" of white male heteronormativity. Women, people of color, homo / bi / transsexuals are viewed as an Other against this perspective that has been indoctrinated into us from the beginnings of our socialization.

So, with this in mind, I ask you (those of you to whom this question pertains, anyway): when was the first time you realized that you were white? Not the first time you took notice of other races, but of your own in relation to other races. Have you?

For those of you with the means, I highly suggest picking up a copy of White Privilege: Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism. It's a collection of some very concise, informative, challenging essays. Part one deals with the existence of privilege, part two with the history of the current racial situation, part three with the ins and outs of said situation, and part four with what can be done about it.

In anticipation of defensive responses:

"I'm not a racist."

What you mean, most likely, is that you're not a bigot. There is a difference. Nazis, the KKK, and a good number of Republicans are bigots. Bigotry is irrational hatred. There is no hatred necessary for racism. Simply put, racism = power + prejudice. We all have prejudice. From the minority that talks about "all white people" and women that are inherently distrustful of larger men, to white people that talk about "homies." Anyone that identifies as white, by no fault of there own, has privilege. The same goes for anyone that identifies as male, middle class and up, or heterosexual. It's nothing you've done, it doesn't make you a bigot, but it does make you racist. Shit, for all of my prattling on, I am, and will likely always be, racist. I am prejudiced as a result of how I was socialized / indoctrinated, and I have power by merit of my white male heterosexual designations. Like it or not, we live in a white supremacist society. Problem is, those responsible for systemic racism have made "racist" synonymous with douchebag fascists. They've subverted language to keep the gears turning.

"But my family never owned slaves."

It doesn't matter. You are just as white as a person descended from slave owners, and as such, benefit just as much from white privilege. Like I said above, since the rise and fall of socialist / anarchist unions following the industrial revolution, western Europeans were united by their inclusion in the new working class as white. Instead of fighting racism, they joined the winning team and let the people that can't assimilate near so readily due to skin color bear the full burden of white supremacy.

"I see people as people / I don't see color."

That's really sweet of you, for sure, but it's not reality. Ignoring systemic racism allows it to continue, which puts the possibility of that egalitarian perspective farther off. It's the logical equivalent of saying that you see women as equals, while not acknowledging or working to end unfair hiring / compensation practices, or the far more problematic issue of rape culture. Furthermore, given white male heteronormativity, viewing minorities as such denies them their culture. It's not respectful & equal co-existence, but homogeneity; though the idea is cute in a quaint sort of way, it's just as much a result of white privilege as anything else stated in this post.

"But I was robbed by / given a shitty manicure by / raped by..."

That really sucks. It's a shame you had to endure such a tragedy, and there's no excuse for individuals acting in such a manner. Be that as it may, the only influence race has on your experience is in the factors that may have contributed to a situation in which such fucked up behavior is far more likely than in situations that are more common among white people. A fair amount of crime is the direct result of nigh inescapable poverty, which is statistically higher among minority communities. Shitty schools, abuse / marginalization at the hands of the police, statistically higher rates of arrest / conviction that further limits economic opportunity and increased socialization among others that resorted to criminal behavior. Again, these factors are not an excuse for fucked up behavior, but fucked up behavior is intrinsically tied to said factors. These factors are perpetrated, knowingly and / or unwittingly, by government and private sector authority figures (the rich and their bureaucrat enforcers / managers). When the poor do it, it's crime, but when the rich do it far more effectively, it's just business as usual. Focus on the factors instead of hiding from your privilege behind a tragedy or two.

"But I'm poor as all hell. I don't see how I could have any privilege."

Try. Try really hard. You are more likely to get a call-back, more likely to get hired, more likely to get paid a higher rate, more likely to get housing loans, more likely to get health insurance, less likely to die from undiagnosed disease or crime, more likely to network and make profitable connections, less likely to get arrested, less likely to face police brutality if arrested, more likely to afford counsel or get effective court-appointed counsel, less likely to get convicted, more likely to get a lighter sentence if convicted, and less likely to be hindered by the designation of FELON on every future job application. You got it rough, I'm sure. I'm right there with you, but blaming people of color, blacks or immigrants, is divide-and-conquer indoctrination perpetrated by the upper class to keep us distracted. If we're distrustful at best, hateful at worst, we'll never work together against the bastards that are fucking all of us on / in the bottom.

"I was / am the minority in my particular area."

So you should understand all of this that much more readily. Just remember: your experiences and anecdotal evidence are only a fraction of reality at-large, and exceptions to the rule generally serve only to distract from the unjust rule.

"But I have black friends."

My friend has a 15 year old son that was giving the Nazi salute while I tried to point out how his frequent use of the N-bomb and various other manifestations of raging bigotry were seriously fucked up. He's got a black friend named Keith.

"Why should I feel guilty..."

Fuck guilt. Fuck the spineless New England liberals that voted for Obama in the primaries solely because he's black. Guilt doesn't fix anything, so don't waste your energy on it. Anyway, looking at all minorities as one cohesive unit that deserves your pity is kind of racist.

Now that I've likely offended a good dozen or so of you, I've got to get a shower.

Introduction to Anarchism

2008-04-10T04:22:00.000-04:00

I was compiling a handful of "primer" reading for facets of anarchist theory for a friend, and figured I'd toss it here, too, in case any of you may be interested.

What Is Property?, by French anarchist and mutualist Pierre Joseph Proudhon, published in 1840.

The Abolition of Work, by post-left anarchist Bob Black, published in 1985.

The Revolution of Everyday Life, by philosopher and Situationist International member Raoul Vaneigem, published in 1967.

An Anarchist FAQ, written by an international work group of anarchists connected through the internet, in constant revision since 1995.