Letters from a Young Radical

Moving to Wordpress!

2009-03-14T20:31:00.001-07:00

Heya,
To all 0 of you who read this, I'm moving to Wordpress and making an attempt at being (yet again) a bit more serious.

www.youngradical.com

How to Discover the Truth (Maybe, Sorta)

2009-01-21T13:06:00.000-08:00

I've probably talked a lot about this before, since it's been driving me nuts lately, but I try to explain often that I don't really believe we have access to the Truth very often (but we're always looking for it). This is most frustrating when you run up against two completely different explanations for something. When trying to school oneself in politics, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that there's a lot of competing and contradictory information out there, and at some point you have to ask with whom the truth lies (haha.... pun).

I think at a high level, it depends on the situation, and each issue should be evaluated separately. This can be a pain in the ass so my decision has been to find a source I trust and research what I can when I have time but generally accept what they say. If you don't find someone whose analysis you trust, but you still search for knowlege, you're just going to drive yourself insane.

Most of us have a source we trust. For many right-wingers it's Fox News. For moderates perhaps it's The New York Times or NPR. For me it's Socialist Worker. From what I've discovered on my journey, there are some useful steps to finding someone to trust:
Look for a source that shares your morals and desires.
Ask yourself what they might have to gain from printing inaccuracies or misleading through omission, spin or specific language.
Find out what sources they use, and if you find those sources to be trustworthy.

For me, I trust Socialist Worker because the people who write for that paper share the same morals and goals with me: We are against bigotry, oppression, imperialism and poverty, and for the idea of putting people before profit. I personally believe that they have nothing to gain from misleading the public (it would only hurt their cause), because if they achieve their goal, everyone in the world will benefit. They do use loaded language, but since I agree with their cause, it doesn't bother me.

I also tend to trust NPR because it seems like a reputable and largely neutral source, likely do to its funding by the public rather than corporate interests. I also get a lot of my news from The Guardian, a british newspaper that isn't afraid to comment more bluntly on United States news (it may however, be not so great for British news).

I don't trust sources run by bigots of any kind, because we don't share the same morals or goals. In addition, information motivated by hate is often even more colored by biases and intense emotions, so you end up with really dumb stuff like "Feminazis are Jews" (go ahead, google it). I haven't yet figured out if something motivates people to spread misinformation for their cause or if they just see what they want to see. These warnings apply for everyone of course.

In any case, I mistrust most mainstream news because news outlets like Fox, CNN, The Washington Post, etc are companies - they don't exist to inform the public, just to make money, and a lot of people have interests in this success including many people in government. Media and government have a mutually beneficial relationship. I think this is becoming common sense among people now, but it seemed very much like a conspiracy theory for the past 8 years or more. I think a lot of people assume people in government and media are just like us, clueless. I personally don't believe that.

So we're all going to come to different conclusions based on our own experiences, beliefs, and biases. I'm sure there are a lot of people who think that Socialist Worker would benefit from misleading the public because the people who run it want to turn the world into marching formations of grey uniforms and want no one to have choice and want to kill a lot of people. I personally don't believe that. :)

The other step to moving um, closer to the truth, is to get as many perspectives as possible. For most people (perhaps unless you're Noam Chomsky or something), your first impression is going to be missing a lot of pieces. As a radical leftist with a socialist perspective, I make sure to read views that I tend to agree with, but in order to get any context at all I have to understand what the mainstream media is saying. That way I can compare the status quo storyline to the radical storyline and ask which makes sense.

This process became really apparent in the past few weeks as I've tried to school myself on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I tried to understand it a bunch of times in the past and I just couldn't get my head around it for some reason (mostly because I couldn't remember who the Israelis were and who the Palestinians were - pretty dumb huh?). My first impressions came from hearsay and the mainstream media. What I heard was that the terrorists in Gaza, Hamas and normal people, were shooting rockets at and killing Israelis, so Israeli responded. Shamefully I have to admit, at this point I still had some inkling that "that's just how they are in the Middle East", because that's what I've been told my whole life. People are poor, and poor people are more prone to violence, and everyone over there hates everyone else because they're a different religion. I never really realized how little sense this made, and while I still think it's true for some people (it's no different from thoughtless and hateful racists and such over here in America), I don't think it's the rule any longer.

Looking at the socialist perspective (and even the regular left perspective like from the documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land) really made things make a lot more sense. Israel occupied Palestinian land tens of years ago, kicked people out and forced them to live in horrible conditions for years, so a ruling power called Hamas retaliates by firing crappy rockets that have killed very few people. Israel responds disproportionately and kills over 1,250 Palestinians (so far) not just out of racist Zionism, but because they are imperialist and because the US supports and funds their bullying in the Middle East. That's obviously not even half the story but it makes a lot more sense than the idea that Israel was defending itself, or that all Middle Easterners just like killing eachother.

So find a source you trust. Find a perspective and an analysis you trust. Mine is the Marxist analysis. Make sure to compare the mainstream story with your trusted perspective and ask yourself what actually makes sense. It's amazing what idiocy they'll try to stuff down our throats and we simply accept it because it's repeated and supposedly spouted by professionals (remember "the terrorists hate our freedom"?).

Of course, I'm not an expert on anything except attempting to learn.

The Techno is the Political?

2009-01-20T17:21:00.000-08:00

Ok I'll admit it. I love techno. I'm an ex raver. I love all the little kandi kids. Some rave songs make me cry. Techno has taken me to "a higher plane" at times in the same way that drugs have. Not really why I'm writing this post though.

I recently discovered hardstyle (a fusion of hard trance and gabber), which I think is just flipping amazing. The silly video above shows some really cool shuffling set to hardstyle music as an example. So what I want to know is: Why do so many hardstyle tracks sample audio clips of people talking about women in a derrogatory fashion? The last one I listened to was about prostitutes, and before that every derrogatory word for a female you can think of. I guess it's a "problem" with techno in general. You don't hear a whole lot of samples depicting men as objects or scratching of men moaning or anything. Obviously there are more male djs than there are female djs (although I'm not sure why - doesn't it seem like a gender neutral kind of scene?). There's a lot of girl skin shown at raves, and that's played up in a big way online.

Anyway. Could you save the 5th grader crap for some other genre that I don't like? Cause you're really killing the PLUR. Srsly.

Review of the Inauguration

2009-01-20T10:07:00.000-08:00

I have little to compare this inauguration to as I don't think I've ever watched an inauguration before. I imagine it was quite a bit different in rhetoric from previous inaugurations, although there was still a LOT of god talk, an overuse of the word "freedom" and the overall feeling that America is in the right even if we're a little broken right now.

There are a few things that made me twitch:

Dianne Feinstein spent a lot of time talking about the importance of nonvoilence and then mentioned the people who are dying for our right to be nonviolent.
Why is there an anti-gay bigot offering up a prayer for Obama's family?
Why is there a prayer?
Aretha Franklin's singing! Cue emotional montage!
Find the cutest little Kenyan girl and focus on her.
For that matter, get as many shots of black people crying as you can find. I know, I know it's an important moment, it's just that the presentation is so transparent!
Even as Barack Obama seemed to burn bridges and talk about a new America, and getting rid of the old ways of doing things, he still spoke in grand generalizations which portrayed America as broken, but still the best damn country in the world. A friend to everyone, unless you do the same things that we do, like finance genocide or silence dissent, and then we will defeat you.
"...for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." So does that mean he'll stop being pro-Israel and stop the genocide in Gaza?
"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history;" Sooooooooo, does that mean I have no fear of being beat up by riot cops the next time I go to a protest?
What's with the "we will not apologize for our way of life" thing?
I don't think I've ever been called a "non-believer". Isn't that usually used in the derrogatory sense? Or most commonly used when yelling about how all the non-believers are going to hell? The term is religion-centric rather than objective. It's kind of like calling religious people non-atheists or black people non-whites. Anyway I just thought it was weird.
I still don't get America's obsession with "freedom". It's such an abstract concept. How is it defined? People just cling to it without questioning what it really means. And I get that we don't live under an oppressive dictatorship exactly, but there are a lot of insidious ways to control people in this country and they're put to good use.

Hm, I wonder what David Cross would have to say?

Communal vs Individualist

2009-01-18T11:02:00.000-08:00

I just received an email from the Barack Obama mailing list pointing me to a new government-endorsed volunteer site, complete with the the supersexy site design. Although there are plenty of really good volunteer sites already out there, the first thing I thought to myself was that it's really cool to live in an era where your president encourages you to volunteer.

However I've been trying to examine the purpose behind Obama's rhetoric since he began, and I wonder if this isn't another mindshift that actually benefits the status quo.

When Barack Obama said that change comes from below, me and every other socialist just about choked on our own tongues. "That's what we've been saying all along!" we said. It seemed completely contradictory to everything we'd been taught, which we considered false by that time, so it seemed really radical of him. Now he's talking about a new age of service - of volunteerism. Funny how just that added element can make me wonder if he isn't changing his tune.

The idea behind the classic idea of "change from below" could perhaps be called collectivism (?), and is the idea that struggle by The People is what changes the world and creates progress. This is not what we're taught in school - textbooks tend to heroify one person, generally whatever president was in power at the time. For example, FDR is given all credit for the New Deal, when the only reason he even considered it was because of considerable pressure from below. The effect this has on the collective psyche is to discourage collective action, and make us feel powerless, because none of us see ourselves as heroes.

So when the president-elect "endorses" change from below, it very much seems as though he is humbling himself and recognizing the need for social movements to put pressure on not just him but on everyone in power.

This whole service thing has me thinking though. I never thought of it before, but I think the idea of volunteerism is incredibly individualist. While I agree it's necessary (it helps some of the problem immediately, it's a great exchange and very fulfilling), I think it's potentially damaging to suggest that "change from below" EQUALS "volunteerism", because volunteerism is nothing more than a band-aid. It's great that people are feeding the homeless and planting new trees as I type this, but no amount of volunteering will change the fact that homelessness and polution are created by our flawed system.

I've come to believe that the president understands these sorts of things. I'm fairly sure that they have access to a LOT of smart people, sociologists, psychologists, public relations specialists and all kinds of powerful people who know how to essentially control the populace (if you don't believe me, try watching BBC's The Century of the Self or reading Edward Bernays' book Propaganda).

Even keeping that in mind, I have to wonder - what is Barack Obama's intention? Is someone or some idea pulling his strings in this? Does he intend for us to feel both empowered and responsible for fixing the system that can't be fixed? How are people going to react to this, if at all?

PHOTO AT TOP: That's actually the LA Burrito Project - a volunteer effort which I think is REALLY cool. It's actually illegal to feed homeless people in a lot of cities, hence the masks.

Kill them all? Really? A total rant.

2009-01-13T11:13:00.000-08:00

It's REALLY unfortunate when ignorant, hateful assholes put their support behind a cause, because it encourages viewers to assume that these people represent what they're supporting, when really they're tarnishing its reputation. The pro-Israel people that came out to support Israel's massacre in Gaza are some of these assholes. Although Max is patronizing his interviewees just a tad, I don't think any clever video editing was necessary to show exactly how twisted these people's perspectives are.

This rally was an overtly racist and hateful gathering. To support the mass killing of a people is just fucked up. I think I can confidently say that if there's a universal truth, I'm on to it. That's where trouble comes from I suppose, the assumption that you're Right, but at least the ideas I ascribe to are support the elimination of suffering, rather than the spreading of more.

Hearing people say that everyone in Gaza should be "wiped out", that all Palestinians are extremists and terrorists, calling them "a cancer" - this is the worst part of humanity.

Where does it come from? Who benefits? Perhaps from stubborn bias, misinformation, perhaps a need to belong or a feeling of being wronged and a need to retaliate, and it obviously benefits the United States.

It's really unfair though. My gut response was "wow, Jews are really messed up", and I immediately caught myself, because I don't think any of this has to do with being Jewish. I guess this is where my stance on personal responsibility comes in - I'm much more inclined to think that this is a matter of cultural brainwashing than of someone really sitting down to try to understand their lives and finally deciding to support the mass murder of people they think they disagree with.

It's the same situation as with the Westboro Baptist Church (you know, the Christian fucks who protest soldiers' funerals and think that the whole army is gay and therefore an abomination under God or something like that) - yet I know a lot of really great non-hateful Christian people. It's the same situation with Stalin who claimed to be a Marxist but made to suffer the people that Marxism is supposed to save, and the Socialists I know are anti-Stalin. It's the same with the nameless African Americans who voted against gay marriage in California right after Barack Obama was elected, which made us all wonder how any or all black folks could be prejudiced against another group. It's the same with any racist white person. We can't take these people as representatives for the whole group (although I'm consistently curious about the statistics and the cultural factors that may make it LIKELY for a certain group to take a certain stance).

Fortunately there's usually another voice, like the Jewish Voice for Peace and the Shministim.

I guess I just wanted to let off some steam. Seeing the footage from that protest seriously enraged me (like watching Bill O'Reilley). Even before I began reading the socialist perspective on the situation in Gaza, it seemed to me that the situation was pretty clear-cut. Palestinians in that area were moved into this small piece of land called the Gaza Strip and forced to live in horrible conditions. Surely they must have asked nicely. Surely they must have spoken out. Surely the must have begged and pleaded for mercy from someone. And when no one listened, they started screaming - with rockets. Rockets which I've read haven't killed more than a couple people in all the time they've been utilized. And as "retaliation", Gaza gets massacre, and there are people who think this is fair. Can you really blame the oppressed for fighting back?

What really gets me is the teen who thinks the Holocaust is upon her. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't realize that Jewish folks were still oppressed? I mean I guess anyone who dresses "out of the norm" (including me) may get looked at funny or beat up in highschool, but I don't think that constitutes a holocaust. On the other hand, institutionalized racism against non-whites, and as late specifically Middle Easterners, is rampant, and the situation in Gaza can surely be called genocide, because it certainly isn't self defense on the part of Israel the oppressor. What kind of twisted self pity is this?

Recently, Socialist Worker interviewed Haidar Eid (a professor and activist) who is in Gaza,

"Things are getting worse--really much, much worse. We can't find food. We're surviving on canned food. We have a serious water crisis. We still haven't seen any electricity. And we don't know what to do... More than 40 percent of those who have been killed are children and women... We can't sleep because of the shelling from the Apaches and F-16s. And the drones, 24 hours a day. And now the mortar shells, because they have tanks around the city now. We can't sleep, and you can it in the eyes of the children. It's really horrific."

And the protesters just say, "kill them all". Completely fucked up.

I know it's a bungle. I know I can't know the truth of the matter, but it really does seem simple. Shouldn't we be beyond this kind of thing, as a species, by now? Shouldn't it be easy to stop killing each other and try to figure out a solution? I mean surely the politics of religion, which refuse to give way regarding the promised land and such, are a barrier. But beyond that, I mean seriously. What is it about our culture or our biology that makes some of us (and not others) so bloodthirsty? I guess the reason remains that some very powerful people benefit.

Just to be clear, I really think this struggle risks people becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian. I don't think it's about the people. Likely, most working people are just caught in a battle between powerful groups acting in their own interests. I am in support of peace, and I really think what Israel has chosen to do to Gaza now and in the past is completely messed up, but I'm wary that that stance should come off as anti-Israeli.

One lady in the rally video (the one who talked about cancer) said something I thought was pretty profound:

"...When people don’t want to talk and just want to destroy you and not allow you to live, there’s only one thing you can do."

Amen.

Ideas for Change in America

2009-01-05T10:52:00.000-08:00

I'm writing to tell/remind you about the Change.org: Ideas for Change in America "competition". This project was created in response to Barack Obama's call for increased citizen involvement in government. The final round of voting began on January 5 and is comprised of the top 3 rated ideas from each of the 30 issues in the first round of the competition, which collectively received more than 250,000 votes.

The top 10 rated ideas from the final round will be presented to the Obama administration on January 16th at an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, co-hosted by the Case Foundation. At the event we will also announce the launch of a national advocacy campaign behind each idea in collaboration with our nonprofit partners to turn each idea into actual policy.

A bunch of great ideas (and ones that would have been taboo and unthinkable just a year or so ago) have made it to the final round. I want to encourage all of you to sign up for an account at change.org, and VOTE for each of the following issues (that is, if you agree and you're not too busy organizing rallies). There's probably plenty more that I missed if you check the main page.

1. Free Single Payer Health Care
2. Pass Marriage Equality Rights for LGBT Couples Nationwide
3. Leave Iraq Now!
4. Take Care of Disabled Veterans
5. Forgive Student Loans: Stimulate the Middle and Lower Middle Class

I will of course be the last person to tell you that this is real democracy, that the systems in use on the website work flawlessly, that 250,000 people represent everyone in America and that Barack Obama will obviously do anything in his power to make these desires happen. It's pretty unlikely that any of those things are true. But as someone I greatly respect has recently said, since Barack has opened the door a bit with his rhetoric about participatory government, the people of America have a chance to drive a truck through it. And we should. Even excluding the idea of what to do with this information, you have to admit it's a pretty awesome public opinion tool.

Brief rant: Most of you probably know that I'm very interested in socialist theory (ie: I eat babies). I just want to say that I think technology like this has great potential for mass collaboration and coordination. I don't think that these technologies and interactions are bringing us closer to a socialist society necessarily (they may actually create a false sense of power), but I do wonder what we can we learn about people and cooperation in the age of the social internet, and how these technologies could benefit coordinated action and decision-making. It's fascinating even outside of Marxist theory, fully relevant to the work I do (www.ameritocracy.com and beyond), and obviously highly relevant to activism for reform in the world today. Just in the past few months we've seen huge turnouts for rallies against Prop 8 organized largely through Facebook! Times are certainly a changin'.

Of course, this project alone will not change America. If we want to make an impact, we must join movements, attend protests and rallies, sign petitions, start grassroots projects, and make our voices heard in as many ways as possible. Still, I hope you'll take the time to participate in this fascinating experiment. This may be one of the most important eras in our lives to create positive, non-capitalized, non-trademarked change.

Get More Involved (Seattle)
There are various Inauguration Day actions, partially celebrating Obama's historic election, and partially looking to make these demands of the upcoming administration:

End the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Defend Gay Marriage -- Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act
Support the Employee Free Choice Act
Money for Education, Healthcare, Housing, and Jobs – Not for Jails and War
End the Budget Cuts and School Closures.
End the Attacks on Immigrants Arabs and Muslims. Stop the I.C.E. Raids and Deportations.
End US Support for Israel's War on the Palestinians.

3 Events on JANUARY 20th (facebook):
+ Walkout @ 1pm @ Westlake Park
+ City-Wide Inauguration Day Celebration and Rally from 12pm - 4pm @ Seattle Central Community College
+ Inauguration Day Rally @ 11am at University of Washington

The myth of the nuclear family

2008-11-27T11:56:00.000-08:00

Mark Steel is always delightful to read:
The myth of the nuclear family

He says:

NO MATTER how far society moves from the "traditional" family, we still seem determined to impose it on all history. I went to the Viking museum in York a while ago, in which there were models of a supposedly typical Viking family, in which Viking dad was working while Viking mum was making dinner in a pot and the Viking kids played with a Viking dog and cat. They should have had a commentary, with the dad saying "Hello darling, I've had such a hard day at the pillaging office, that darned South-West division missed their target yet again, they've barely massacred more than three villages since the new tax year."

I have kind of a nerdism for "traditional family values", and if you do too, I suggest you read three books:

The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz
- to be fair, I haven't read this one yet!

The Way We Really Are by Stephanie Coontz
- I read this, and it was amazing. It goes through the history of the family, and how the nuclear family was not only a passing phase, it was barely even common except on 50's television shows. Besides the interesting history and politics of it all, I actually found this book to be comforting in a number of personal ways, as it gave a lot of explanation as to why my family is the way it is and why I am the way I am.

Marriage, a History by Stephanie Coontz
This is also spectacular and revealing. Have you ever thought about the fact that when marriage was a new(ish) thing, saying "forever" meant probably another 15 years?

Hmm, I guess I really like Stephanie Coontz!

Homophobic Minorities, Racist Homosexuals, Divide & Conquer, Oh My!

2008-11-14T10:07:00.000-08:00

I guess the title says it all. First the story is that homophobic blacks are to blame for the passing of prop 8. Now people are saying there's a backlash from the GLBT community of racism. My first reaction to all of this is and has been, "Are you kidding?! Don't you people understand that ALL bigotry is bad?" I mean can you say "hypocrite"? But as will all the rest of the spectacle we've seen during election fever, I'm wondering if these flames aren't perhaps being fanned by the paranoid or the media.

I have to admit that I'm one of the people who flipped over hearing that women who were once Hillary fans were deciding to support Palin. As far as I know, people like this did exist (I read a blog and heard about a fairly large/loud group), but it certainly wasn't everyone, and as my smart friend Carolyn suggested, spreading the idea makes all women look bad.

So I have to wonder, where is all this coming from? I still think it's really backwards that any black person could find themselves voting for the removal of another minority's equality, or that anyone in the GLBT community could find themselves spewing racial slurs. Surely on some level this happens, but perhaps it's not as big as it's being made out to be. The ideas certainly make African Americans and the American GLBT community look BAD, which is GOOD for some people. Who benefits? This is divide and conquer whether we're bringing it upon ourselves or whether it's being passed down to us by the media or some other group. We NEED TO WORK TOGETHER if we're going to liberate ourselves from any kind of oppression. I encourage anyone (including myself) to keep an open mind and attentive ears about this story, and not to denounce all blacks for their betrayal, or all GLBT for their betrayal. At risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist.... "because that's what they want us to do".

As though a message sent by god... haha just kidding

2008-11-13T16:22:00.000-08:00

No but seriously, after writing the last entry I found myself watching Jonathan Haidt's TED video again about the difference between liberals and conservatives. I just discovered that he has other projects, including a site called CivilPolitics.org, and I'm so glad to see him suggesting compromise as well, rather than simply black and white solutions.

Jonathan says,

"At a time when America faces enormous challenges at home and dangers abroad, our ability to work together, trust each other, and compromise for the common good is declining. Surveys show that Americans are not moving further apart in their attitudes about specific policy issues. Instead our leaders, our political parties, and our media outlets have become more polarized, strident, and moralistic (i.e., excessively concerned with morality and certain of their own virtue). When political opponents are demonized rather than debated, compromise and cooperation become moral failings and political actors begin to believe that their ends justify the use of any means."

In general, I've been trying (sometimes harder than others) to follow his "code of ethics" concerning debating with other people, although I have to admit I find it hard sometimes. I don't totally understand the psychology of argument (why do we get so angry when we talk about politics?) and surely I have some unique problems to deal with (serious aversion to conflict, lots of self doubt), but I can say I've been trying. If I wasn't open to the idea that conservatives can be "good" people too, I would be going against my assertion that personal responsibility is a small factor in our lives.

I mean yes, I hate people who hate. People who spew bigoted nonsense that hurts others REALLY bother me. I think it's really messed up, stupid, and reprehensible. At the same time though, I can hardly blame people for coming to conclusions that they've been raised with. How can they begin to think outside of their own morals if that nudge, whatever form it may show up as, never comes?

The Tyranny of the Majority

2008-11-13T14:53:00.001-08:00

I'm only just starting to think about this, so this is a dipping-my-toes entry, but I already find it really fascinating.

This past weekend I was learning about how Anarchists prefer total concensus decision-making, meaning that EVERYONE has to agree on a decision (which was called actually, "the tyranny of one", as one single person has all the power to stop a decision from being made). To socialists this seems like a great way to waste time.

Marxist Socialists are into democratic centralism, which Lenin called "freedom of discussion, unity of action" and is basically democratic majority rule. So you discuss, you vote, and then you agree (by being there in the first place) to work together to go forward with the decision. If it doesn't work, you learn from your mistakes, reassess, and try again. This makes sense to me, but an Anarchist would argue that it doesn't satisfy the needs/desires of everyone, which would be the most fair thing to do.

Capitalism is also interesting. Joel Waldfogel talks about this in his article, "If the shoe doesn't fit, blame the tyranny of the market". He quotes Milton Friedman,

"The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market is that it permits wide diversity. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit."

Waldfogel's reply:

"Free-market economists have told us for decades that we should rely on market decisions, not the government, to meet our needs, because it's the market that satisfies everyone's every desire, [but] for small groups with preferences outside the norm, the market often fails to deliver."

Which is absolutely true in a number of ways. Even considering something as trivial as fashion, in my experience, every once in awhile something comes out and you think, "awesome! I've been wanting one of these for a long time!", but when you did want them, what could you do to get one but make it yourself?

The market offers everyone health insurance, but a lot of people simply can't afford it. The market offers me tons of food options, but until recently, most of them were incredibly unhealthy. Even now while the market is changing to a more health-conscious state of mind, I still find it almost impossible to find a restaurant with normal proportions or a creative veggie menu.

Some people argue that because the market follows trends it gives us everything we need, and if it didn't, it wouldn't survive. This argument starts to crumble when considering the fact that most products are things we DON'T NEED but were convinced that we do in order that someone make a buck off our suffering egos. Similarly, it's argued that everyone is satisfied under Capitalism because we have SO MANY CHOICES! The problem with this is that even the choices we have are limited by the status quo - I don't need 17 different kinds of tampons, I just need one that won't give me TSS (I've never yet seen an unbleached tampon or an alternative on a chain supermarket shelf). I don't need 500 kinds of eyeliner, I just need the kind that won't give me cancer.

The American "democratic" two-party system is a similar problem.
America: "Would you like the hamburger with cheese, or without?"
Sally: "Uh, I don't eat meat..."
America: "Well if you don't eat one of them, you're unpatriotic for not participating in the system".

Yeah, that's how I feel about a lot of things. But anyway, back to the Tyranny of the Majority.

I think it would be great to have a system in which the voice of the majority actually matters, and once the vote has been made (in whatever context), the needs or wants of the losers should be considered. Compromises and additional solutions should be looked into. I think this will only work however, in a society and culture where people are valued over profit (yes of course I favor the socialist path).

Our next president, Barack Obama, is against gay marriage. Although a majority voted him in knowing thatl, I disagree that we should enact legislation against equality for the GLBT community. I think something like this wouldn't be a problem if we existed in a system that refused to oppress minorities for any reason, even at the behest of the majority.

What I learned at the Northwest Socialist Conference

2008-11-10T16:43:00.000-08:00

I learned a lot at this year's Northwest Socialist Conference. Since this blog still has no defined audience but myself, parts of this may only be interesting if you know me. For the format I'll just go ahead and do a play-by-play notetaking direction.

Mike Davis' talk about the Economy
Mike asserted something I'd never heard before - that the New Deal did not succeed and what actually saved the economy was the second world war. Similarly, he says that the cold war gave us 20 years of high level military spending which offered a permanent stimulus for the economy, and had similar analyses of other wars in this century. This left me asking: Can Capitalism survive without war?

Shaun Harkin opens the conference
I didn't take notes and I don't think there's a video of it but this guy always does such a good job of summing things up and getting everyone excited. Plus he's nice. Plus he has a huge Irish accent and pronounces power as "pyoower". Love it.
For a good time, check out his talk about 1968, the Year of Revolt »

Kate Johnson's talk on Imperialism
On a similar note to the above question, Kate suggests that capitalism can't survive without the military. Quoting someone I've forgot she says that the "hidden hand" of the market needs a "hidden fist" behind it. Sort of like Chuck Norris' beard.

Skipping everything else and going straight to the evening session on Saturday night, I have to say that this panel of 7 people was absolutely mindblowing. It was informative, incredibly touching, sometimes funny, but more importantly it really brought a variety of areas together on one stage and brought all of those fights to the audience. I've read their stories on the web, but actually seeing these people and hearing about their struggles is incredibly powerful. Even moreso it touches me personally to see people who aren't socialists be willing to come to a socialist event and even to thank the ISO (International Socialist Organization) for being the only group to reach out and support them. It's a really special thing to really know that a group you're involved in is actually making a difference. The speakers benefitted as well, networking with and helping eachother.

On to the lessons...

Don Grinde
A 31-year crane operator at Boeing and a veteran union activist in the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The 57-day Boeing strike of the IAM union this year told us stories of brave workers, union solidarity and yet more nasty strikebreaking tactics. Even though the IAM didn't win everything they were hoping for in this contract, Don says that this was a win for workers because they succeeded in empowering themselves, instilling ideas of solidarity into the junior workers, and cost Boeing a ton of money showing exactly what kind of power the workers of the world have. Moral? It's all about the journey. Oh and when you're feeling uncertain, rent a helicopter.
Watch a video of Don's talk »

Elizabeth Fawthrop
University of Washington Campus Anti-War Network (CAN)
Liz presents the always-astounding facts about student involvement in the history of the antiwar movement. Marxism states that workers have the most power to change society through revolution, but it's undeniable how much impact students have had in the past. Four million students protested the events at Kent State.
Watch a video of Elizabeth's talk »

Tim Harris
Executive Director of Real Change News in Seattle
Tim gave a shockingly good talk. I say that because I've been obsessed with homelessness since I arrived in Seattle and finally faced it directly, and in that time I've never heard anyone speak so intelligently about it. Tim calls homelessness the "structural dislocation" of people, which happens when there are surplus people in the global economy. He noted that when there's an expectation that people will be needed, funding for social programs mysteriously rises, but during other times, people are "thrown to the wolves". Consider the jail system and the war on drugs in this context. Drugs he says, are the perfect commodity - they provide both oblivion and financial gain. I've found it hard myself even to blame addicts for being homeless, refusing to ignore the truth that it's incredibly stressful at the bottom, but Tim puts it so eloquently. At what point do we stop pointing to the red blinking sign that says "personal responsibility"?
Watch a video of Tim's talk »

Allen Bradley
One of the Freightliner Five, members of the bargaining committee of United Auto Workers Local 3520 in Cleveland, N.C. who were terminated after leading a legal walkout at a Freightliner truck plant after their labor contract had expired. Three still haven't been reinstated.
Allen had an astounding story. Workers fired unexpectedly by a company AND a union set against them for engaging in legal union activity. The tactics used have just been NASTY. Allen read touching and encouraging letters from the other four, and there were thanks all around to the ISO for taking an interest in their case. By the end of the talk, the ISO led a solidarity chant and Don Grinde announced that the proceeds for his strike photograph prints ($25 each and meant to go to the union) would be donated to the Freightliner Five cause. We were just about in tears in the audience.
Watch a video of Alan's talk »

James Bible
President of the Seattle/King County NAACP
James's talk was really thought-provoking and experiencing him was like watching a really dramatic lawyer movie. I mean he has some serious charisma. He told a story revealing the prevelancy of racism in Seattle and encouraging us to all think beyond our assumptions. He called for a Youth Empowerment Movement and asked us all to tell kids we see on the street, "we believe in your potential". Absolutely moving.
Watch a video of James' talk »

Jesse Hagopian
A teacher in the Seattle Public Schools and a member of the ISO
Jesse is one of my favorite speakers, and he didn't fail to make the crowd laugh a lot even while they were listening to shocking statistics. He calls the bailout a "reverse bank robbery" and retorts that he's glad McCain set the record straight about the rumor that Barack Obama was a Muslim by saying, "no he's not, he's a good family man". His offering of real Hope is noting that we've all felt isolated under Bush ("I hate the guy, but no one else seems to!"), but since the excitement about Obama, now we can SEE our brothers and sisters in the fight. Also he makes a joke about white people and pot. :D
Watch a video of Jesse's talk »

Camilo Mejia
The first U.S. soldier to publicly refuse to redeploy to Iraq, and Board Chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War
Camilo walked up to the microphone to chants by the whole theatre of "they're our brothers, they're our sisters, we support war resisters!" I love the ISO's ability to just make that kind of moment happen. I was sort of hoping that Camilo would expound upon his experiences going against the military and how he succeeded in his efforts, but instead he went into a seriously moving and powerful speech about the antiwar movement.
Watch a video of Camilo's talk »

The Dayschool on Sunday brought up a bunch of questions as well, but the most pressing question for me was the issue of lifestyle politics (basically anything you personally do to try to change the world - recycling, buying organic food or growing your own, not using tampons, avoiding flushing the toilet when you pee, boycotting, many etceteras). Can we change the world through individual actions? Most people agreed that we can't, and that mass action (or of course working class revolution) is the solution. However we continued to wonder to what degree these actions can be beneficial both to spreading the word, doing a small part and transforming your own life. I suggested that these actions, if you can afford them in both time and money, can help us become healthier and experience what it might be like in a socialist society to live a more authentic life without the poisons of capitalist society.

I came away with a lot of questions to research and discuss. I learned that it's easier to call someone a liar than to debate with them about it. I was reminded yet again that different people will trust different sources, but that doesn't necessarily translate to them being bad people. I was encouraged to remain open to people to the right of me (Obama supporters for example), but with whom I share many desires. I also learned that when Socialists go to bars sometimes they talk about beards and The Little Mermaid.

The government is blogging?!

2008-11-10T14:06:00.000-08:00

The new administration already seems to have a more human face than I've seen in my lifetime. Barack Obama talks about change coming from the bottom up, about how change comes not from Washington but to it, and about how he'll be listening to what the people have to say and responding directly to us as best he can. That's something I've never heard nor ever expected to hear in my lifetime. Since I became politicized and subsequently radicalized, I've felt only voiceless. As thought there's no dialog with those in power, as though I have absolutely no power (and being able to vote in a few elections didn't make me feel any better).

I have to say, finding out that there's a blog on change.gov, the "office of the president-elect" online, I'm pretty stunned. Of course, likely the government websites of the past have had updates. But a blog? I mean that really speak's the peoples' language, or at least the young peoples' language. Blogs come off as amateur and immediate, so they seem very transparent. Of course a government blog would be the perfect place to put all of your best lies and misleadings, but the important part to me is the IDEA. The idea that Obama really is listening and talking to us in a way that makes him seem much more accessible than other presidents (or even any other politician). THAT is amazing. THAT will raise expectations from people.

I think there's a real possibility here that after 30 years of disenchantment and demoralization and low activity on a mass scale, that the attitute of Barack Obama, even if everything he said is simply scripted to better market him, the attitude is going to make people feel more empowered. If the president is asking you to join a social movement, hell. We're in a good spot. I hope that expectations will be raised, new possibilities will fill people's heads and that we'll all get our voices back and start shouting and filling the world with songs and chants and dreams and demands.

Racism is Damn Sticky Stuff.

2008-11-02T14:50:00.001-08:00

Ok. I probably shouldn't even be upset about this because what it really comes down to is an altercation with two complete strangers who were acting damn weird, and were obviously either trying to mess with me, or drunk or on drugs or just... weird.

Still. I think this is the first time I've ever been accused of being a racist and I find it damn ironic that it happened on the way to my car after our weekly socialist discussion. This week's topic was oppression, including sexism, homophobia, ageism, religious intolerance and RACISM. We spent two hours talking about how horrible these ideologies are and how we can overcome them through cooperative struggle.

On the way to my car, two slightly older black guys ask me if I know where the Wild Rose is. I said sorry, I don't live in Capital Hill. And they said you don't understand, YOU are the wild rose! We've been looking for you, now come play pool with us. And I'm smiling and I stop to talk to them, which is more than most people would do, and more than any woman concerned for her safety SHOULD do, but this is a habit I've made: to try to connect with people on the street, even if they're hitting on me, or if they're asking me for money. So I tried. He's going on about the Wild Rose, and I say, "well my name is Iris, so that's pretty funny right?" hoping I can shake hands and be on my way. And one of the guys starts talking about how "they" zapped it into his brain and to look for the girl with the beads (as he's touching my necklaces) and he says come on lets go and takes my arm, and I'm like I'm sorry guys, I'm on my way home to my boyfriend. And the other guy says, "you're a racist". And I'm totally taken aback, and I say "what?! come on...", and he holds his friend in front of me for a good look and says, "seriously, who's more attractive, your boyfriend or this guy?".

Ok. First of all, talk about setting me up. He wasn't attractive, but here I am trying to be nice and just not get into a fight so I'm like "well they're both ok..." and immediately he starts in with a slew of all kinds of words "you are a fucking stupid punk nigga ass (etc) racist BITCH" and I just turn into this child. I've got both hands up to my necklaces and I'm looking down and I'm just going "nooo, nooo, nooo" like a little kid. I felt like all I was trying to do is be nice, I've offered more of myself than anyone else would and I get beat down for it. And so they get sick of this game, and laugh and walk away. And all I want to do is cry.

Again, I know this was just a stupid runin with some assholes. It had nothing to do with race. But I couldn't help think - even if these were weird dudes, they must harbor feelings like that, which is important.

And as a white female, I start down the sticky race road. I'm asking myself what I did wrong. And then I say to myself, "hey wait a minute - doesn't that make THEM racist if they're just assuming that because I'm white and I don't want to go play pool with them that I'M a racist?", which only supports my secret fear that black folk I meet will think I'm a racist, which in itself might be kind of racist. And in the end I'm just confused.

I guess the truth is that I did what I could in the situation and these were just some jerks. It wasn't a serious discussion about race. I wasn't uncomfortable around them because they're black, I was uncomfortable because there were two of them, they're men, they're bigger and older than me, and they confronted me (and then got mad at me - yikes).

I always wish I'd said something else, but I guess it wouldn't have mattered this time.

Nail Polish is an Oppressive Tool of Patriarchy!

2008-11-02T10:39:00.000-08:00

Haha just kidding. Sorta.
So lately I've been trying to do more... typically "girly" things, like put on nail polish (black in memory of high school) and makeup (I watched a bunch of youtube videos about how to do emo/punk makeup).

The whole freakish thing about how girls put eyeliner BETWEEN THEIR EYE AND THEIR EYELASHES (omg it's scary, and it tickles and hurts at the same time), and the fact that when you do wear makeup, you have to not touch your face all night and then bring all the crap with you in case you mess it up or it starts to come off, and besides the fact that doing eye makeup almost guarantees having an eyelash in your eye by the end of the night, and besides the fact that you have all this crap caked on your face. I mean as long as it looks good right?

Anyway besides all that: NAILPOLISH. I thought it would be easy, for some reason. First of all, it's impossible to put on without having it gob all over the place (ie: not on the nail, where its supposed to be). And then - and here's the oppressive tool of patriarchy bit - you have to NOT DO ANYTHING, not touch anything, basically not use your nail for anything (and they're usually so useful!) because otherwise you start chipping the polish all off.

It's like little corsets for your fingertips.

So let me ask you, seriously, what the hell?

Totally Random Thoughts on Homophobia

2008-10-31T14:33:00.000-07:00

I find it really funny when guys (usually it's men) say "I'm not homophobic, but I'm really not cool with gay guys hitting on me". Now. I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling that way. After all, I'm sexually attracted to men, but I don't like it when they hit on me either. That doesn't make me heterophobic.

But I also don't feel the need to bring it up. Which makes me feel like that statement reveals a remaining homophobia, even if the person has enough sense to realize that it's not a good thing.

Barack Obama

2008-10-30T12:57:00.000-07:00

This "infomercial" for Barack Obama makes it even more clear (in case we forgot) how very very good his marketing team has been. I don't think the US has EVER seen such a gorgeous, touching, emotional and SEXY campaign in its history. Thank heaven for the trends of glassy buttons, gradients and drop shadows! So obviously this presentation is impressive, and a skeptical person would wonder exactly how many elements (particularly the touching music and beautiful cinematography) are helping to brainwash them.

Having said that, it made me feel a little guilty for being so grumpy about Barack Obama during this campaign cycle. I have decided to vote for him, because unlike Al Gore and John Kerry in the 2000 and 2004 elections, my resolve has fallen like so many other people to having a little crush on Barack, and truly being touched by his words and demeanor, and again the historic accomplishment that would be his presidency. The way he speaks reminds me a great deal of Martin Luther King Jr.

Moreover, a LOT of what he says I agree with. I love the way he talks about how the money going towards the war could be used for other things, even though I don't think his position on withdrawal is strong enough. I love the way he talks about education and his idea for rewarding volunteer efforts with tuition grants - brilliant idea! I love the way he talks about health care and I'm so glad he says he's concerned about this bullshit preexisting condition stuff, however his policies fall short on a Single-Payer Healthcare system, which I think we need NOW.

The ideas he touches upon, or the language and visuals he uses to hook the "right" don't bother me so much, although it's obviously a strategy. I had a little twitch during the shot of the African American couple holding hands at the dining room table both with bibles open in front of them. Questions arise: Is his marketing staff simply pandering to the religious of the country, because democrats are generally considered to be anti-religion? Or is he really so religious himself that it was appropriate to put in there? I figure it's forgiveable. Which I find interesting in itself. If he had shown a scene of me, a far leftist, and my life, there are probably a lot of conservative people who would be offended and simply not vote for Obama because of that, whereas perhaps leftists are more likely to forgive the campaign for emphasizing family and the bible. Fortunately I can say that I'm not running with stereotypes anymore, since there's been some research done on the differece between Liberals and Conservatives.

Anyway. I find this whole thing terribly confusing, because like any rock star, you can love what they show you, but you can never know who that person really is. Case in point, my mother ADORES Obama. Thinks he's going to save paralyzed people everywhere. Says he's just the best person in the world for pausing his campaign to visit his sick grandmother in Hawaii. And I said to her "yeah it does seem like he's a nice guy because of that, but I guess we can't ever really know if he was doing it for the campaign or what." I think she was a little offended at me even suggesting that as a possibility. Because she feels like she knows him. My grandmother on the other hand, reportedly called Michelle Obama "disgusting" the other day while watching her on television. My theory is that she's just racist, but at the same time, she thinks she knows who Michelle Obama is. And doesn't like it for some reason (perhaps even LESS reason than my mom has to like Obama, since she's not simply making a snap decision based on skin color).

Point is, I love Gerard Way of My Chemical Romance because he seems normal. I love Jason Kay from Jamiroquai (although I'm positive sure he's a huge asshole). I love the things that Dave Matthews says in his lyrics, but he seems like a real douchebag whenever he talks. Watching the gossip rag covers, Brad Pitt seems to continue to have a shined and buffed image and he can do no wrong. How much of this is real, and how much of it is smoke and mirrors? (For the record, I think the most real-seeming celebrity of all time is Amanda Palmer).

How many more positive emotions did I feel while watching Obama's infomercial simply because of the touching music? How much more appealing do I find him simply because he paid some people to make one of the best design campaigns in history? Or am I remaining reasonably un-brainwashed with proof being my disgust at the simplicity of the slogans "Change", "Hope", and "Progress"? Am I doing ok because I can say I like this rhetoric, but I don't think he's taking it far enough, and I'm not even sure if he can follow through with his promises?

I find the whole thing pretty fascinating. The only conclusion I can come to is that I like MOST of the image that he and his team of marketing gurus has come up with. I don't like much at all about McCain except for his goofy old man hamster faces. There has to be something to that - they are different and at least to some degree, the campaigns are going to reflect the individual. So I'm voting for Barack Obama. I'm skeptical at best that he will or actually CAN follow through with his promises, but I'm in support of a great deal of them. As for the rest, if he's elected this coming Tuesday, I'm ready to push from below (and he asked for it!) to hold him accountable, demand more, and let him know when he has done something that makes America better off. Hopefully, as he promises, he'll open the lines of communication as much as possible, and do the same.

Mark Bittman and the Vegetarian Experiment

2008-10-09T15:38:00.000-07:00

This is a really informative and persuasive talk by a meat-eater (hehe, always sounds like yer talking about dinosaurs, right?) who thinks we REALLY should eat less meat. These are the practical and political arguments that I feel won me over, and are more powerful to some people than the "animals are our friends" argument. Don't get me wrong, I could never kill an animal, but I'm not against eating them. I just agree with Mark that we don't NEED to eat them, the animal abuse that goes into the process of mass meat production is hardly worth it, and the polution and health risks are even less so.

So I wanted to update on my vegetarian goal. I definitely have not achieved it. I've done better some months than others. What I have achieved is that I haven't bought meat for eating at home since I set the goal, and I've discovered a lot of REALLY tasty veggie products that I like quite a bit better than meat.

What's hard about "going vegetarian"?

Telling people you're visiting. Seems all this summer I got grumbles and teasing and "well I already made it so I guess we'll have to make something else for you" - general annoyance

Going out to eat. I love going out to eat, that's one problem. The other is that there are still so few "normal" (as in not vegan or veg specifically) restaurants & bars that only have a couple options for vegetarians - usually salads and sometimes soup. If you're ok with fish, sometimes fish. I think the place downstairs has an ok veggie burger. But still 95% of the menu items contain meat. I really hope to find a way to push for change in this area (this and smaller portions please!!). There are tons of awesome and hella tasty recipes, even ones you can grease and gravy up to your pleasure (though I'd prefer you didn't), so hopefully in the near future, restaurants will start getting a clue.

Someone else ordered it. This is definitely cheating but I figure if I didn't pay for it, I'm not being part of the problem. Yeah, I'm bad.

So I haven't done an AMAZING job, but I've definitely eaten less meat, noticed more about what I eat, discovered some hella tasty alternatives, and I think if everyone started thinking consciously about this, we'd be off to a good start. Poof.

Celebrities Really Really Want You To Vote

2008-10-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

This sort of thing drives me nuts. Yeah, these campaigns are great. I have no idea if they actually work, but hopefully they do. Me, I decided to vote for a lesser evil this year, but this isn't really about my politics.

As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Last time we had an economic crisis like this (The Great Depression), the hero that made The New Deal happen wasn't the president who executed the orders, but the people who put pressure on him to do so.

Yes, voting is important, particularly if you're someone who believe that the ideal president can make better decisions for America's people than America's people can. I of course, don't share this view, but many people do. That's why videos like this spend all their time on trying to get people to vote the right person in, rather than talking about how once they're in power, we have to hold them accountable.

Heroification of the office of president is one of the dangerous ideas that discredits the power of the masses. Our history textbooks are rife with it. The individualist character of America makes it even worse. They benefit when we believe that uniquely special people are what changes the world, because then we won't band together with others to make demands. But history has proven that it's pressure from below that makes the real magic happen in Washington.

On "Preaching to the Choir"

2008-10-01T11:15:00.001-07:00

Apologies for totally not writing in a long time. I have a lot to say but for the moment I'm just going to get this little pet peev off my chest.

IT DRIVES ME NUTS when people talk about "preaching to the choir". The phrase itself basically implies a useless act, but more specifically that the "preacher" is trying to convince the already convinced. I often hear the phrase used in reference to any politically leftist event in Seattle, suggesting that no one should bother doing anything leftist in Seattle because most people here are already leftists.

Frankly I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Let's go back to the preacher and the choir example. There's a reason people go to church every week and it isn't to get more converted than they already are. I'm also fairly certain that the stream of people entering a church on Sunday to get converted is slim to nil, or at least not enough to merit weekly services. The preacher preaches to the converted every week because people are constantly learning more about their faith and themselves through his/her sermons. They gain strength by hearing motivating ideas and continually returning to a group of people who share their ideals and dreams. They come back again and again because there's always something new to do - this week a soup kitchen, that week a bbq, next week a Habitat for Humanity project. I dunno, whatever church people do.

My point is that any leftist political activity in a heavily leftist city, or any leftist political activity in the meetings of an anti-war group, or any discussion by leftist people, IS USEFUL EVERY TIME. In my opinion, there's no such thing as preaching to the choir (except perhaps in the specific incident of one individual literally trying to convince another individual of something that they already believe).

Having events for example, that talk about the atrocities of the war in a town that's likely already antiwar in majority, is USEFUL. Perhaps people who are on the fence will come. Perhaps people who are already antiwar will bring their friends who have never engaged in grassroots activism before. Perhaps many of those who are antiwar will learn things they haven't learned elsewhere. Perhaps getting all of these people gathered together in one spot will create a sense of solidarity, a sense that things are actually going well, and this will dispell some of the demoralization that has been stacked upon our country for 30 years now. Perhaps people will meet new people, get their contact information and start a group at the university, or in their work places, or at a local pub. Perhaps those little groups turn into movements that change the world.

It's ALWAYS USEFUL. And that's why we keep doing it.

On tattoos: a personal (and therefore probably boring) diatribe

2008-08-04T20:37:00.001-07:00

I've been in various conversations recently where I'm confronted with someone who expresses a distaste for permanent ink based on a belief that the body is essentially perfect as-is; That the body we were born with is what's "right" in a sense. Even my mother, who is an artist and quite a radical thinker herself, seems to think of them as a way to ruin a work of art, while I think of it as a way to improve a blank canvas (among other, more important purposes).

This idea that getting a tattoo is a radical, regrettable or irresponsible thing to do is wholly confusing to me, as it seems like one of those common beliefs that comes from an outdated cultural rather than a really useful place. Some might use the term "universal ethics" - I think for example that being kind to people is a really useful ethic, while hating homosexuals is not so useful.

I have no problem with any tattoo for any purpose - I think they're lovely and interesting and in general a great way to give the finger to mainstream society and anyone who would judge based on appearance. I'm not terribly concerned about the idea of suddenly being 80 and the worst thing I ever did in my life was get a silly tattoo. I feel that I'm fairly well-adjusted, and if there comes a time in my life when I feel that the themes of my tattoos (currently strength, optimism, curiosity and compassion) are no longer important, I'll have worse things to worry about than covering up my skin. If anything, I hope these will always be reminders of things that should be important to me until I die.

Which brings me to what I really want to talk about: why I'm getting tattoos. I'm not at all against people who get tats just because they look cool, or to separate visibly from society, but I have reasons in addition to those.

The first tat I got is technically my Start Here Designs logo (www.startheredesigns.com), which I spent a semester agonizing and occasionally even crying about. It was a soul-searching journey where our professor really forced us to ask what truly characterizes us as people. What is my life all about? Can you imagine - there were some kids that hadn't ever thought of it before. So I came up with this thing that looks like a little "creature fetus", yet to be born. I based it in great deal off of the character of The Fool in the Tarot, characterized by Cindi Kirkpatrick:

"the fool is eternal. He is the spirit in us that questions, he is the adventure in us that leaves safe places to find new things, he is the part of us that is hungry enough to want more and silly enough to take the risks to find what we need."

This is a way of thinking I hope to hold and to represent my whole life. The logo which became my first tattoo represents the eternal newborn, the journey, optimism, hope, all good things. I got it after graduating from college, about to move to Seattle and start my "adult" life.

My second tattoo I got a little over a month ago, and it says "b r e a t h e.". I got that one after mostly, though not completely, overcoming a fairly serious bout of panic disorder, something I never expected to have to deal with in my life. I'm still living with it to some degree, and the tattoo has reminded both me and those around me to be mindful in the moment and to slow things down when things seem hard. It reminds me that I have felt recovered at times, and that I can get over this thing.

I got got what I consider to be a fairly gigantic tat on my right arm today. This one is a little different, based on Jack Kerouac's The Dharma Bums and inspired by this particular passage:

"... a world full of rucksack wanderers, Dharma Bums refusing to subscribe to the general demand that they consume production and therefore have to work for the privilege of consuming, all that crap they didn't really want anyway such as refrigerators, TV sets, cars, at least new fancy cars, certain hair oils and deodorants and general junk you finally always see a week later in the garbage anyway, all of them imprisoned in a system of work, produce, consume, work, produce, consume, I see a vision of a great rucksack revolution thousands or even millions of young Americans wandering around with rucksacks, going up to mountains to pray, making children laugh and old men glad, making young girls happy and old girls happier, all of 'em Zen Lunatics who go about writing poems that happen to appear in their heads for no reason and also by being kind and also by strange unexpected acts keep giving visions of eternal freedom to everybody and to all living creatures..."

That philosophy characterizes a lot of my current feelings about the world, and the book The Dharma Bums became my comfort in the uncertain times between graduating in Rochester and moving to Seattle - we were at the time crashing with my partner's brothers. Kerouac reminds me a great deal of myself - much more of an onlooker and a follower of beautiful people and things, and although we look to him as a legend, it's obvious from the way that he writes that he had as many moments of doubt as we all have.

So this tattoo, although I'm not a rucksack revolutionary of any kind - I've never hopped a train or camped alone in the mountains or written haikus - but there's a love for life and a curiosity and joy about eastern spirituality that I'm really excited about. So perhaps this is something I want to bring into my life, rather than something I can say I accomplished.

What I find really important about getting tattoos of things that are meaningful to you is the pain. My poor grandmother would cringe at the idea. But what I felt when I got this Dharma Bums tattoo today was absolutely beyond anything I've ever experienced before. Purposeful pain for two hours straight, and more pain probably than I've ever really felt save a good bout of food poisoning. Many really fascinating things happened to me over those two hours - including being absolutely horrified and then intrigued, and then moving into states of absolute tolerance where I didn't really mind or notice the pain although I knew it was there, to states of alternating hopelessness and euphoria. I became really emotional, I was to touched at one point I almost cried, I wanted to embrace the person who was delivering the pain, I wanted to embrace everyone around me, I wanted to know who had walked in the door. I felt a bit like I do when I'm drunk. It was lovely.

But all mushy bits aside, I really think this is an important metaphor. Life really can be painful, and to get to a good place in life can be really hard, and every minute is worth it. In order to dedicate myself to the things I have or want tattoos about, I'm going to have to devote myself to a lot of pain in a way. My politics, wanting to bring positive change to the world, wanting to connect to people and spread an awareness of compassion and unity, working class revolution - all this stuff people think is totally wacky. It's going to really SUCK trying to be a voice for these things, but that's how it is. And it's all about the journey, and I'm ready, and these tattoos are promises to myself and to everyone that I'm not going to give up.

Another thing I found really interesting was how relaxed and happy I felt for the rest of the day. I haven't felt that relaxed in AGES. It was a lot like the feeling just after getting a really good massage, and as I've learned, after receiving reiki. Everything was perfect, everything had slowed.

On the Stupidity of the American People

2008-06-18T14:38:00.000-07:00

************************************ EDIT ************************************
I've just received a comment from Rick Shenkman, the author of the book I rail on in this entry. I'm posting the comment at the top of this post to give some context as to why I only slightly edited, and did not delete the post:
"I AM THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK YOU'RE CRITIQUING WITHOUT READING.

SALON LEFT A MISLEADING IMPRESSION. I CERTAINLY DO NOT BACK LITERACY OR CIVICS TESTS FOR VOTERS, FOR INSTANCE.

AND I DO NOT BLAME THE VOTERS FOR ANYTHING. I ASK THEM TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR. FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER THE 9-11 COMMISSION REPORTED THAT 50% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STILL INSISTED ON BELIEVING THAT SADDAM WAS BEHIND 9-11 I SEE NO REASON NOT TO HOLD THE PUBLIC RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS IDIOCY.

TH INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR ANYBODY WHO CAN READ OR WATCH THE EVENING NEWS. THAT SO MNY FAILED TO ABSORB IT IS A SAD COMMENTARY ON OUR DEMOCRACY.

THIS IS A 10 ALARM FIRE THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO IGNORE ANY LONGER.

PLEASE GO TO MY BLOG TO FIND OUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE BOOK IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO READ IT. THE BLOG PROVIDES A VIDEO, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT LAYS OUT SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS.

HTTP://HOWSTUPIDBLOG.COM

RICK SHENKMAN"

I removed the assertion about civic literacy tests and any unnecessary jabs at (or further mentionings of) the author. I think this is an interesting debate and I'd like to keep it up for that reason. I intend to dive into the author's blog (and book, if I have time) to hear it from the horse's mouth. I apologize to the author if I misrepresented his assertions in any way. This blog is certainly not meant to be a news source of any kind, simply a time capsule for an unimportant kid in some interesting times.

************************* ORIGINAL POST, edited *************************
As a huge disclaimer here, I don't often read Salon and I haven't read Rick Shenkman's book, "Just How Stupid Are We?". My knowlege of this book is based on hearsay about its controversial assertions and this one article. All the same, I have things to say. I'm going to make an uninformed guess that if Salon was trying to give a balanced perspective on the book and ended up criticizing it for a number of reasons, if they didn't mention the ones I have in my head, they probably aren't covered in the book either.

The basic proposition here is that We, The People, are stupid, and this is really a huge problem for democracy, because you know, we vote.

I'm not disagreeing with the statistics. I agree to a great deal that we are, not stupid per se, but ignorant of the government structure, current events, and generally how everything works. You can tell by how badly I wrote that last sentence that I'm among the many people who don't have a clue. It's definitely one of my huge weaknesses, especially for someone who argues that we overthrow the system (o! the irony), but this is something that's stuck with me my whole life. When I was young I had zero interest in politics, I still can't tell you the first five amendments, or who signed the Declaration of Independence. It's to the point where a few years ago I thought that reading Jon Stewart's America would actually help, and in actuality it only confused me!

So. Here I am. I don't consider myself a stupid person, although I'm wholly aware of my ignorance in many areas of life. I think I have just about as good a reason as any, and I don't think it's totally my fault. Yeah, so I thought history was largely boring, but is that due only to my own internal workings, which were grown in a complete vacuum? Hell no.

Shenkman's assertions according to Salon (which may actually not be Shenkman's assertions but are likely someone's assertions and are therefore interesting all the same) are generally that:
1. "they know nothing about government or current events"
2. "they can't follow arguments of any complexity"
3. "they stuff themselves with slogans and advertisements"
4. "they eschew fact for myth"
5. "they operate from biases and stereotypes"
6. "they privilege feeling over thinking"
7. "the hoi polloi no longer have anyone telling them how to think"
8. "Americans are very good ... at being manipulated and lied to"

What I love is that now its OUR fault that we're manipulated and lied to. I'm going to guess that psychologically it comes from the kind of rampant individualism that says "well I'm smart, why aren't you?" and completely ignores the brew that makes up people individually, and as a country.

Lets start at the top, with ignorance on government and current events, borrowing the example from the article that students forced to listen to NPR for an hour called it "torture". With what I've learned in my "adult" years about history classes and the textbooks they're based on, I would say its no wonder that kids don't retain this knowledge (or seek it again) into their adulthood. American textbooks expend a great deal of energy speaking on how great America is and how good our decisions have always been, refusing to admit guilt for any but the most blatant of mistakes (like, you know, exterminating entire tribes of Native Americans), and we all know that a story without conflict is B-O-R-I-N-G. Not only that but I think young people find it less believable. Imagine yourself (if you need to) as a 12 year old African American female - do American history textbooks say anything to you? Do they make you FEEL anything? Do they give you a sense of hope? No. Women and minorities can be found in American history texts, but they are few and far between, and dumbed down to a large degree. Those textbooks are HUGE, do you remember the back pains you'd get from carrying 3 of those around in your backpack? So students are expected to lug around heavy, inconvenient, boring, misleading and totally not inspiring books and go home attempting to rush through tons of pages because the books are too long to get through in a school year. Teachers are watched to make sure they don't add any nuance or explanation to what's already in the curriculum. Students are tested based on memorization rather than understanding or critical thinking. Students who are skeptical and question what they're reading are ignored or reprimanded. Students who are told in history that they live in the land of the free where they can be anything they want to be end up going home to an impoverished lifestyle where they can't just dream up opportunities are going to be skeptical.

So its no wonder that kids don't retain this info, and consider it boring. And I wouldn't consider this the fault of people, I would consider it a by-product of how our system is set up.

Moving on to "they can't follow arguments of any complexity"... well, I just find that insulting, but if we have to go into it I would call this a claim that Americans are generally uneducated. I don't think this is true, and while I think that - um, should we call it "logic illiteracy" or something? - can be found in all classes of people, it tends to be the case that many of us in the lower classes, even middle classes, have too much crap to do and worry about and want and wish for to have enough time for education. In the close-to-worst case scenarios of the working poor, there's a never-ending cycle of problems with health, medical bills, living conditions, working conditions, paychecks, food, family relations, personal emotions, civic engagement, community engagement, safety, and many many etceteras to worry about before one can have a head clear enough to learn and retain information. Again I say this is not a personal problem, but a systemic problem. Perhaps if we were willing to help out the working poor (or anyone) more financially, they'd have the time and emotional availability and confidence required to give their full attention to education.

Ok this one I adore. It's very adorable, "they stuff themselves with slogans and advertisements". Oh! Here we are again, WE stuff OURSELVES with slogans and advertisements. Oh yes, I've been seeking out good slogans to fill my brain with, I found some really really good ones but I just can't seem to get enough of them in my head. Please! Give me more advertising! I NEED THE SLOGANS MAN!!!!

I mean are you kidding me? Our hyperprofitobsessed culture is now our fault? Who made those advertisements? Who is benefitting from them? Did you even do any research on the effect of advertisements on people who even TRY their HARDEST to ignore them (such as myself)? Ok so I haven't found that information either, but I'm fairly sure that being obsessed with my weight, even though I know rationally that I shouldn't be concerned about it and that it was socialized into me by the disgusting for-profit media culture that surrounds me, is not quite my fault.

Culture is pretty damn powerful. Many people don't know this, it's true, but if you were never told, you may never know (it's as simple as that in MANY cases). I grew up believing in god, not because my parents were religious (they aren't), but because of what I heard and read and saw around me. Sometimes it takes us awhile to question what we think without being prompted. Sometimes it occurs to us, and sometimes it doesn't, but I would say even that is due to environmental factors that poke and prod us to reassess. I don't think MOST women take issue with at least one part of their body just because they're stupid Americans, I think its because the images we are RAISED with, and encouraged to believe are reality are very very powerful and highly effective. Most of us are just looking for direction, and media, advertising, slogans, entertainment, news, etc - are all too happy to give it to us (in order to make a penny). Just watching television for example, we're shown who to vote for, what to think about anything, what to wear (what's cool and not cool), how much to weigh, what hair to have, what products to buy, what car to drive, what music to listen to, ad infinitum. Now you can go ahead and say "yeah but you're stupid if you actually listen to that thing". I disagree, I think if you're 14 and you find a show that you and all your friends like (for the same reason usually, socialization) and you find characters you resonate with and respect, yeah you're going to want to dress like them and act like them and have similar morals to them. So if we continue to objectify women and make fun of homosexuality YEAH, it's going to have an affect on our culture! And I think it's naive to think otherwise.

Lets skip to 6 cause this is getting too long: "they operate from biases and stereotypes". Well, YEAH. Again. If you feed them biases and stereotypes from the top, and as the culture creators and the sources we go to to understand and categorize our world, YEAH people are going to operate on the language you give them, because they've experienced NOTHING ELSE!

And skip to 8, "Americans are very good, he says, at being manipulated and lied to". That's hilarious. There is no manipulator, only the manipulated. I think this speaks for itself.

Lastly I find this quote interesting:
"The upshot is that we are now "in the pitiful position that neither liberals nor conservatives are prepared to say to The People: stop and pay attention. Liberals cannot because their ideology leaves them unprepared to find fault with The People. Conservatives have not because The People repeatedly put them in power."

My take on that is that I agree that Conservatives tend to not blame the people because they repeatedly put them in power, but I think the part about the liberals is short-sited. Liberals (well Dems) are also put in power by the people and wouldn't dare to insult them for the same reasons, but they don't seem to want to blame the system either, because its even more responsible for their positions of power.

I'm going veggie. Really!

2008-06-14T13:04:00.000-07:00

This is sort of a random, impulsive, spur-of-the-moment decision, but to give it some level of political force, I want to announce it here.

I'm going vegetarian.
I don't know for how long, I've never tried it before, but I want to give it a try.

I find it funny that I haven't made this decision before, and I've done a lot of reading (particularly those horrifying pamphlets they hand out) and I've been kind of shocked that I haven't found the sticking point for me.

Yeah, I don't like hurting animals, but as I'm not the one doing it, I've always just thought of it as natural (and to a degree, of course, it is). So animal cruelty didn't get me.

The whole animal cruelty thing in the factory farms is absolutely deplorable, I agree, so instead I shop for organic, vegetarian fed, free-range (etc etc etc) meat products. More expensive, but its a start.

Even the concept that it costs more energy to raise animals than vegetables didn't get me... until this morning.

I was reading Fred Magdoff's article called The World Food Crisis: Sources and Solutions, which begins with this shocking declaration:

"Of the more than 6 billion people living in the world today, the United Nations estimates that close to 1 billion suffer from chronic hunger. But this number, which is only a crude estimate, leaves out those suffering from vitamin and nutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition. The total number of food insecure people who are malnourished or lacking critical nutrients is probably closer to 3 billion—about half of humanity. The severity of this situation is made clear by the United Nations estimate of over a year ago that approximately 18,000 children die daily as a direct or indirect consequence of malnutrition (Associated Press, February 18, 2007)."

Since my introduction to Socialism, I've seriously wondered how we can let this happen and call it fair in the "free market". But something about this week is really drilling it into me. How did we get so far down the wrong path?

Back to vegetarianism, I came to this passage with fire and brimstone going on in me:

"Feeding grain to more and more animals is putting growing pressure on grain stores. Feeding grain to produce meat is a very inefficient way of providing people with either calories or protein. It is especially wasteful for animals such as cows [...] because they can obtain all of their nutrition from pastures and will grow well without grain, although more slowly. Cows are not efficient converters of corn or soy to meat—to yield a pound of meat, cows require eight pounds of corn; pigs, five; and chickens, three (Baron’s, March 4, 2008)."

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm not sure if feeding grain to livestock instead of offering them basic pastures is a factory farm thing or an everybody thing, but screwing with food staple availability just to make more money faster really ticks me off. Not to say that we don't already have enough food to feed the world, it's just that using this type of raw material in such an inefficient way drives the availability down, and therefore drives the price up. This is one of the many reasons the food crisis is so dire right now, and I'm going to pull my penny-a-day on this one and go veggie.

No, there's nothing good about corporations. No, I'm serious. Stop laughing.

2008-06-14T11:20:00.000-07:00

I had a weird conversation the other day and reading about the causes of the global food crisis (short-term and long-term) has peaked my interest in posting about it.

It wasn't actually a conversation, more of a ghost of one. What was funny was that a close friend of mine was laughing at someone's use of terms like "giant mega corporations" and referring to them as a bad thing. My friend laughed as if to say, "this is just too silly, I can't believe he thinks this!". With a nudge and a grin I ask, "why are you laughing? You know I feel the same way!". He was completely disbelieving, so I said, "yeah I don't think there's a single good thing about corporations." He laughed again, half exasperated and half amused.

Then he starts in, "what about cheap prices?!". Two of them were on me now. "What about your laptop? What about the clothes you're wearing? What about...". We ended the argument before it could begin because we had work to do, so any grumbling I do now may misrepresent their actual feelings.

All the same I have to say, I seriously do not believe that just having cheap goods is any great payoff for all of the problems corporations cause.

First and foremost, a corporation is by definition an entity to make a profit, so by its very nature, it has no concern for human lives, and the people at the top seldom do either. That's why they're at the top. If they were concerned, the corporation wouldn't be successful.

Lets use agricultural corporations as an example. In many cases they move in, take over land with or without proper compensation for the subsistence farmers previously owning the land, they use techniques that are devastating to the environment, the employees, and the end consumer in order to make products more quickly, in order to have more of them, in order for them to be cheaper, in order to put smaller companies out of business, in order to make the most profit and dominate the industry. They can afford machinery which means they can employ less people which means less people in the town are employed.

Is that really worth the price of cheap goods for those of us in wealthy countries? Perhaps if we didn't buy so much stuff all the time, or if the things we bought weren't rife with planned obsolescence, low quality manufacturing by sweatshop labor, and weren't goods made for a throw-away culture (you know, goods that actually LAST?), then maybe we wouldn't NEED goods at the low cost that the corporations so generously provide to us.

Frankly, I'd rather pay more for something that won't break in a year, and didn't screw up the local ecosystem or the local economy, and didn't further impoverish third world nations.

We have to ask, what's the REAL cost of this product? It's much higher than it looks.

America's Cultural Purgatory

2008-06-13T11:01:00.000-07:00

Let me start out by saying that I get accused of overreacting to things a lot, I understand I'm a party crumb, and yes I do think this parody is really hilarious. Well done even!

At the same time, this is one of those red flags in our in-transition culture that sends some amazingly mixed messages to me.

To set the scene, all WoW (World of Warcraft, an MMORPG) players in this piece are male. While this is obviously a huge percentage, it's a stereotype that only males play video games. Women make up about 1/3 of players of multi-player games and I believe have a heavy presence on WoW in particular. Males are also not the only sex that has the potential to spend a tad too much time on the game.

All WoW players in this scene are in heterosexual marriages. I'm pretty sure that there is a GLBT presence on the game as well.

While the piece seems to rail on traditional gender roles by portraying the men as weak and stupid and the women as strong and smart, there are many contradictions in this portrayal.

I know from personal experience that WoW tends to have an obsessive power over people (even me), and this can take a serious toll on romantic relationships that sometimes take a backseat to a game that, one you're high level enough, actually requires you to spend hours at a time playing, and unlike the games of the past, doesn't have a pause button and therefore contains a lot of social pressure not to leave during play. On the other hand, I find the nature of this portrayal, while important, to be pretty insulting to both parties.

The women/wives in this video are initially portrayed as strong women with a handle on reality. They're funny, they speak their mind, and they seem to be practical and without drama. Then we discover the secret to their power: their level 70 breasts (highest level you could get pre expansion pack). On one hand, we're aknowledging that women have a legit power over men, however this insults men by assuming that they are all complete slaves to sex, and insults women by suggesting that our strength comes from our ability to please men. There's still a huge debate over whether women who use their sexuality as a tool are empowered or oppressed.

It gets worse. In the beginning it's suggested that getting some time away from the game would be beneficial, but towards the end we find out exactly what the wives are training their pet husbands to do: stop messing with their flower bushes, wash the dishes (ok that's practical), and go to BABY SHOWERS.

Dude. NO ONE like going to baby showers. Ok, so maybe some people do, and I certainly wouldn't be very feminist by suggesting that women who enjoy baby showers are somehow uncool, but it's obviously portrayed as a huge burden to the men, who are now in the know again, and it's still a huge stereotype on both ends.

I really think they missed the boat on the wives thing as well. I mean, dude. If you're playing so much because your wife just doesn't do it for you, you married the wrong chick. Forget the boobs, find something that you actually WANT to quite a raid group for.

I think these contradictions really say a lot about the times we're living in (trying but still not quite there). I get the same feeling anytime I watch South Park (not often these days) - they'll try to give us a lesson in accepting homosexuality while giving us gay stereotypes to laugh at in order to tell the story. How about Christina Aguilera's video for "Beautiful" where she talks about inner beauty but is all made up herself? How about Danica McKellar's book encouraging young women to get into math, called Math Doesn't Suck: How to Survive Middle-School Math Without Losing Your Mind or Breaking a Nail.

There's a lot of good intention toward accepting and respecting women for their intelligence, but as a culture we still suspect that beneath that, all girls really want are a tight-fitting tutu and some good old fashioned materialism. Yikes.

I ran into an apt blog entry on the Women in Tech blog, aboutthe new "reality show" (is it a reality show if its actually real?) "Nerd Girls" which attempts to prove to the world that women exist who are both smart and *gasp* stylish as well! WHO KNEW! Obviously you couldn't sell the interest of smart women on its own merit (and if you could, would that be sexist in its own way? "Gasp! Smart women! Crazy enough for television!").

Anyway. Vomit. This is why I hate being a woman. When we can get past using stereotypes to talk about how stereotypes are bad, I think we'll have made some progress.

Big 'ol titties

2008-06-10T17:01:00.000-07:00

I just want to say: I LOVE PLAYTEX (and Dove, too, of course).
Have you SEEN these new commercials? I don't watch tv, so I'm a bit late, but the online campaign is so brilliant. This will be brief.

Step 1: Watch the hilarity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liinxSNHfeo

Step 2: Take a note ... that women just took their breasts back.

That was my first thought when I saw that video (and the one where they try to list all the nicknames for boobs). I don't totally understand it psychologically - there's just something totally new feeling about women TALKING about their breasts, SHOWING themselves in bras on television (shamelessly I might add!), and then talking about them. That and of course showing women of multiple races, ages and sizes is still really rare and amazing.

The reason I'm so excited is because I'm so used to men talking about our breasts.

"A little cold there, Sally? Haw haw haw." The boys' club proceeds to elbow each other in the ribs.

I feel like men have defined us for so long (while woman have only been able to appropriate that language in an attempt to take back our own bodies; similar to black culture appropriating "nigger" and gay culture appropriating "fag"), and advertisers have defined us for so long (for men's pleasure, of course). This is the first time I feel like I'm seeing REAL women in advertising defining themselves in an honest and open and non-shameful way. That and holy heck are they hilarious or what? I adore the small and slightly round blonde, totally killer.

The only downside that got me was the girl that said that gravity was no longer her enemy, but brownies were. I feel if you're going to show women of all sizes who are proud of their beautiful bodies, why do we have to get into our constant struggle with weight-based self esteem? It seemed a bit contradictory. Also not sure about the whole "husband pleasers" thing, but I 'spose the point was to represent all kinds of women, including married ones (and who doesn't like to be attractive to their partner?).

Note: I aknowledge that I went at that discussion from a hetero/gender binary perspective, but I think its safe to say that the mainstream definition of the perfect woman and the one being pushed in most advertising is based off of a heterosexual man's ideal.

Does anyone really take Sex in the City seriously?

2008-06-06T16:21:00.000-07:00

Suddenly it's this huge thing. Parties named after it, a film out. I haven't seen it, but I do want to complain about it. That's fair, right?

The movie feels like it came out of the blue (possibly because I've been so out of touch with mainstream culture). It feels to me like we were progressing as a culture away from stereotypes and to a more balanced view of women, and suddenly this hugely stereotypical movie comes out.

Feels like someone way up at the top suddenly decided that we women are getting breaking too much with the attitudes and desires that have been culturally shoved down our collective throats in order to:
Keep.
Us.
Buying.
So I bet some dude was like "shit we better remind them about shoe sales!"

I keep thinking about a feminist friend of mine who gets excited about women-focused services/events/products (even though she tends to have complaints about their execution, and rightfully). My tendency is to shy away completely from anything that's gender focused - rather than celebrate gender, I want to forget about it entirely (although I am trying to reexamine that as I'd like to be happy, rather than disappointed, in my womanhood). The reason I feel this way is because the only woman-focused things I ever see are covered in pink and materialism and old stereotypes. To me it feels if I want something that represents me, I go for something that's people-focused (or non gender specific) or even sometimes male-focused things. I'm not trying to say that the genre of shopping obsessed super feminine women shouldn't be represented, I just think its messed up that this is the only thing that can be called woman-focused. Perhaps the problem is that we've moved beyond gender in many ways in our culture, so trying to make something gender specific is actually guaranteed to bring back stereotypes and a bad taste in our mouths.

I'd be interested in seeing something woman-focused for the type of woman I am, and maybe then I wouldn't be trying so hard to separate myself from gender altogether.

On Propaganda

2008-06-01T14:08:00.000-07:00

I recently had an interesting conversation with a friend about the origins, definition and purpose of propaganda. The term hasn't always been thought of as negative:

"The Latin adjective propaganda, which is a form of the gerundive of the verb propago (from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten"), means "that which is to be spread" and does not carry a connotation of information, misleading or otherwise."

It's been argued to me that the Bolsheviks pioneered modern propaganda during the Russian Revolution of 1917, but there are two things wrong with that assumption:

Propaganda as a tool had been around much longer, back as far as 515 BC and used skillfully by the Romans
Marxist/Leninist propaganda and agitprop were considered essential to the cause, because:

"The term propaganda in the Russian language didn't bear any negative connotation at that time. It simply meant the 'dissemination of ideas'.
Soviet propaganda meant dissemination of revolutionary ideas, teachings of Marxism, and theoretical and practical knowledge of Marxist economics, while agitation meant forming favorable public opinion and stirring up political unrest."

Two French authors, Gabrial Tarde and Gustav Le Bon, seem to be two of the earliest influences on modern propaganda, inspiring people such as Adolph Hitler, Sigmund Freud, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays.

Now I haven't read enough to argue whether American propaganda or Soviet propaganda (be it from the pro worker's power Bolsheviks or the totalitarian Stalin regime that followerd) were more responsible for the modern sense of propaganda, which is:

"Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented."

I find it interesting that the Marxists of the Russian Revolution of 1917 considered propaganda to mean simply telling people about your ideas, whereas American Eddie Bernays took it and ran, creating with Lippmann the WWI propaganda posters of the Creel Commission (also 1917, "the mission of which was to sway popular opinion in favor of entering the war... and also encouraged censorship of the American press.") and going on to pioneer the Public Relations industry, heavily influencing advertising with theories still used today.

"The war propaganda campaign of Lippmann and Bernays produced within six months such an intense anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress American business (and Adolf Hitler, among others) with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion."

In cased you missed it, Eddie taught Hitler a great deal about controlling public opinion. Bernays is pretty much a goldmine of horrifying quotes:

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits."

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

At least one could say he truly understood society in a way most of us would consider conspiracy, but he also helped those in power stick to these ideas, and I think we'd be naive to think the system isn't still working based on the belief that for things to function smoothly in a "democratic" society, people need to be controlled.

If you find this bit interesting, the BBC has an awesome documentary entitled, The Century of the Self, which talks all about how Freud and Bernays influenced the PR industry, and how these techniques led to modern advertising which aims at people's weaknesses and eventually their desire for individuality (influencing such other characteristics such as not giving a crap what's going on in the rest of the world and assuming that all homeless people are at fault for their situation).

During this conversation about propaganda I posed the idea that all advertising is propaganda, according to the basic definition, "Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people."

I also suggested that some propaganda can therefore be good, so long as it doesn't lie by omission or mislead. I voted that sometimes disseminating emotional information is important (imagine how many more people would ignore those "feed the starving children" ads if they weren't horribly depressing?). Imagine save the rainforest campaigns that didn't show the devestation. Imagine posters asking for donations to Darfur that didn't emphasize how "HORRIBLE" what's going on there really is? I think in some cases it's important to appeal to people's emotions. My debate partner argued that we should never use or fall prey to emotion, that being rational is the only way to solve any problem. I responded that I think the trick is to use logic and emotion together, and never one without the other.

So what I'm trying to get to with all this is Obama. Yeah. I'm starting to get a LOT creeped out by this guy. To be perfectly honest, if I decide to vote, I will definitely vote for Obama. I like what he has to say a LOT - of course, that's why I'm suspicious of him. He truly does speak like a Socialist, and I know for damn sure he's not. It kind of annoys me that my comrades have been saying these things for years (er, centuries actually) - "change needs to come from the bottom up", "social movements are important for democracy and progress", "we need change", etc - and they get marginalized for it, while this guy has been turned into a SAVIOR.

Yeah I think "savior" is the right word. I've mentioned this before: what really bothers me about Obama fans is that they love him so much because he represents what they want, but they think he's going to do all the work. That he not only wants to but has the power to change EVERYTHING in their favor. I simply don't believe that. Even if he does believe everything that he says (which I doubt, as he had to change his campaign rhetoric to answer the demands of the people), even if it weren't all just electoral campaign PR, I've come to believe that once in the system (which I imagine largely disagrees with what he has to say), even the president has only limited power, if he (can I say "or she" yet?) wants to retain ... their... position. The ruling class is damn powerful, and coming in and saying "well I know your like your yachts but it's time for the people now", I dunno, I somehow just don't see that working!

But I'm a cynic, and I digress.

I was trying to get on to the graphic design done for Obama's campaign. I mean. Seriously. Scary shit. SAVIOR is the word I used. Don't get me wrong, it is SEEEEEXY. I love it actually! It's really really well done, perfect for the times yet not too web 2.0 obnoxious. It's brilliant. The problem is, it's creepy. What's all this HOPE! CHANGE! PROGRESS! Stuff? It reminds me of classic propaganda posters in a BIG way. I'm talking Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc. Even Lenin whose ideas I largely agree with had the whole cult of personality thing which I'm just not into.

And that's really it - Obama is saying a LOT of great stuff, but he's also a big cult of personality victim, if I can call him that. He's probably the most charming presidential candidate in history, he's even a little cute, however he has yet to have any grand backup for his claims. You'd hardly notice though huh?

So yeah. What's with the creepy savior art for Obama? It seems blatantly transparent - in a bad way. I mean if he's all about transparency in government, and being honest to the people, why's he gotta go and act like the Second Coming in his imagery? That seems to me completely contradictory and really makes me trust him a great deal less. If I stood up and went outside right now, and had some really slick flair and yelled "I AM HOPE! I AM CHANGE! FOLLOW ME IF YOU WANT CHANGE!", people would put me in the damned looney bin. So why's it working for him? Does anyone else feel weirded out?

What I don't get most of all, is why Shepard Fairey would do posters for him:

This is the guy that created the OBEY (Andre the Giant) design, which - I guess I could be misinterpreting - seems like a reference to abusive kinds of propaganda used as social control... although I haven't really done my research there either.

In any case, the obeygiant.com message about the poster series talks about how much they really like Obama. That's great. It just seems to be a very contradictory message to speak on social control through propaganda and then uh... make some.

So yeah. If you're about transparency, honesty, moving forward with power to the people - why are you trying to come off as THE ONE? My guess is that either Obama or his PR manager are confused. It's absolutely contradictory to say that change has to come from the bottom up, from the people, and then to market yourself (in a blatant, cultish, idol-like way) as THE WAY, as the one person who can bring about change. It just doesn't settle with me.

Walled Gardens

2008-05-29T12:42:00.001-07:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about the internet as owned and run by the people. It still feels like a free place - America before it was fully settled. We certainly share the space with the ruling class - media outlets, corporations, and the government - but largely our content is only limited by our own access and experience. I get airtime whenever I want it, and no one can stop me.

What I've noticed recently is that the people (on the web) and the ruling class have been in their own separate walled gardens. It's fair to say that because I haven't ever been very directly involved in politics, that I feel like I have absolutely no power to give feedback to these groups (I hear you can write your senator and things like that, but does that REALLY get anyone anywhere?). There is also dialog in protest, but its hardly ever direct or immediately responsive through anything but the police.

What's interesting is that this is the first year (that I've noticed) that politicians, candidates for the presidency, are actually reaching out to people (largely the youth) through the internet. This is a very very interesting move. So far, access to politicians has been through their own mini walled gardens - their own .coms where they get to control all the content. For them to step into OUR world (I like to think it is), where we control the information, and they are subject to our interpretations, our feedback, our opinions, is very brave. It seems like a logical evolution but it's still shocking to me. This is uneven ground, uncharted territory.

The initial shock was really that this seemed to imply that politicians were suddenly interested in the internet, which says to me everything I've thought about web 2.0 since I first learned about it: "There are truly two superpowers in the world; the united states, and world public opinion". The internet is world public opinion, and if they're starting to listen, I think we can say confidently that our voices are finally being heard. The net is suddenly a respectable (and feared?) medium for political campaigns.

What I'm curious about is the outcome of this. The big project I'm working on could potentially bring together the ruling class and the people in one place - if they can take the heat. I asked Mark Britton from Avvo.com how his lawyer felt about officially identifying with a site that lets users rate them for quality of service - his answer was predictable. Those with good reputations LOVED the site, and those with bad reputations either spoke against it (while still engaging with the site) and the rest I'm assuming, didn't join up.

I'd be interested to see a system where people with bad reputation were still willing to publicly connect with that reputation and make active choices to change it. The trick as I see it is making this reputation high profile enough that they're forced to react. To change.

Very interesting times.

Fluff post

2008-05-29T00:55:00.000-07:00

Has anyone done any psychology experiments on why people are so astoundingly mean on the internet? Yes, I know, everyone says "it's because of the anonymity". Ok sure, so I'm anonymous. Why am I a JERK too?! I simply don't understand. Perhaps it's because of my history, apparently my family situation leave me predisposed to being shy and putting other people's happiness before my own, and having a big issue with being criticized.... but I just can't imagine being a douchebag for no reason. Seriously. Check this out.

The scene: a 1 minute 27 second art film about a robot. Second comment down is:
"wtf is this shit? i literally stopped the movie 3 seconds into it. fuck this shit."

So. The same three major questions always come to my mind:
1) Why... do you feel the need to be so nasty? (ego? penis issues? anonymity? testosterone? teenage hormones?)
2) Why do you care so much that you feel you need to post about it? (ego? recognition? the hope that someone's listening even if you have zip to say?)
3) Why do people get so VIOLENT about this stuff?!

I ask the last question quite often when it comes to political discussions online - or in person actually - people get like, REALLY upset. And I'm not sure why (I tend to get nervous, but I think that's a personal issue). You tell someone you're a socialist and they get OFFENDED.... WHY ARE YOU SO OFFENDED?! It's not like it's personal or anything.

Anywho. In our case here, someone, whom I stereotypically imagine to be a 14 year old boy, gets SO upset by 3 seconds worth of video that he takes the time to type and click the send button on a comment expousing his or her spectacular rage regarding someone else's treasure.

So tell me. Is this something hidden inside all teenagers? Are people just naturally jerks when they're hiding behind a screen name? I mean really!

On The Nature of Nurture

2008-04-12T08:39:00.000-07:00

This discussion is for me an intersection between three seemingly non-related events in my life:

Part of an epic discussion where a friend posited to me that one reason Socialism could never work because there are "bad" people in the world who are "just born bad" and aren't worth trying to help or change.
My own recent experience with anxiety and panic attacks and a therapist, mother and friends who explain how intensely our emotions and mentality can affect our body and vice versa.
The information I've gleaned from the Seeds of Compassion conference with discussions between the Dalai Lama and various professionals who emphasize the importance of a healthy emotional environment early in life.

Personally I'm fascinated, and in large part because of what this information (or the opposite of it) means for the future of humanity. As I suggested to my friend, if some people are "just born bad" (the Nature of "Nature vs Nurture") and not only are they not worth trying to help but unable to change, then there really is no hope for our species learning a better way to live, because there will always be some jerks who are simply born to screw it up for the rest of us. Similar arguments state that we are instinctively violent and competitive as a species. I used to feel as pessimistic, however my sociological studies have given me a great deal more hope.

If we are all largely products of our environment (the Nurture of "Nature vs Nurture") as I suspect, then if we can change the environment, we can change people, and change the world. The fun part of this I realized after reading the Why It Matters section of the Seeds of Compassion website (a highly intriguing read), is that science is telling us that how we turn out is not based on simply Nature OR Nurture, but truly the Nature OF Nurture. In other words, there are biological reasons why our environment affects us so greatly.

It's because of this perspective, for example, that I would hesitate to accuse any homeless person of being in their situation because they lack personal responsibility. I've been told that I'm probably too willing to assume that these people are all victims of the system rather than their own laziness, selfishness or stupidity. I would go a step further to say that I can't even find it in myself to blame a homeless drug addict or a homeless alcoholic for being in their situation. Because I believe that many factors could be responsible for creating someone who perhaps is more prone to addiction than most. Now this is not to say that I don't think personal responsibility is important, or that there aren't people out there who are unmotivated, or selfish, or ignorant. What I am saying is that there are factors in our lives that can affect our grasp of personal responsibility, and there are factors that lead to being unmotivated, selfish or ignorant that I wouldn't consider the "fault" of the individual.

One question I had was what really made up a "good" person or a "bad" person (I personally abhor those words myself, but couldn't explain what they really meant). The Seeds of Compassion website phrased it really well in discussing Social Emotional Development (SED), which is:

...a child’s capacity to identify, understand, experience, manage, and express a full range of positive and negative emotions in a productive way; regulate one’s own behavior such as being able to calm down; being able to accurately read another person’s emotions; develop empathy for others; develop and sustain close, satisfying relationships with other children and adults; and actively explore the environment and learn.

These are qualities which help form a person more capable of not stealing other kids' lunch money or say, murdering thousands of people. The theory goes, if we can find ways to help all children grow up in a nurturing environment where they can understand and develop their emotions, we can make the world a better, more compassionate place.

Studies show that "how a child feels affects how a child learns" (quote from one of the panelists). If certain capabilities are not stimulated early in life, the parts of the brain responsible shut down. From the Why It Matters section again:

...research has found that the critical brain connections that determine emotional, social and intellectual development are primarily formed by attentive care and nurturing stimulation. Parents and other caregivers strongly affect the wiring of the brain through interactions with their infant, toddler, or preschooler. Positive early relationships critically influence a child’s ability to achieve success in school and in life.

One example given at the afternoon panel yesterday described a study of an orphanage which provided very well for the orphans physically (a healthy diet, a warm place to sleep, etc) but lacked a perspective on emotional health. After teaching the staff how to have a more intimate bond with the children and an interest in their emotional and social development, the study went on for some months. What they found was that even though no factors were changed in the children's physical environment, they grew bigger and healthier physically.

Certainly in my own personal experience with anxiety, I've learned that negative thinking and negative emotions can have a big impact on you physically. Most of us can relate to the idea that if you're in a horrible mood, you don't do as well at your job and you really don't feel much like doing your homework.

Shifting gears a bit, I think one cultural factor that makes it hard for the Western world to grasp the concept of factors beyond personal responsibility is Individualism:

Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists ... oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, socialism, fascism, communism, communalism, statism, totalitarianism, and communitarianism, which stress that communal, community, group, societal, or national goals should take priority over individual goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

I'm not sure about the whole history of Individualism, although I do know that it likely complimented the introduction of Capitalism pretty well (ie: "I can be as rich as I want, how I want, I earned it!"). I also know that American companies latched onto it as a marketing technique in the 60's to suck in the youth of the time who were rebelling against the conformism of the 50's. I don't think that individualism is bad per se, I just think rampant individualism without a sense of community responsibility or global consequence is incredibly dangerous and a big reason for our problems worldwide.

I think we need to encourage a greater interest in the social-emotional development of our children in schools, at home, in hospitals and centers of social work. I think we need to look at those who are suffering not with suspicion but with compassion and look for holistic ways to help rather than considering it "their problem". I think we need to be open to looking at every person's situation in life and ask how it happened, and be open to questioning the system which helped create their situation. I think we need to consider the possibility that we can create a better world by teaching our children positive values, by being willing to bring these studies into the home and make the personal political, see the personal problem a social problem.

If we only consider personal responsibility (or biological bad luck) as factors in human success, we may as well just give up. I find this perspective very dangerous, and it simply can't fit in my worldview if I'm looking to change the world for the better.

Riots in Tibet

2008-04-10T17:19:00.000-07:00

Athletes who take Tibet stand 'face Olympic cut'

I understand the argument that "politics should stay out of the games", if only out of respect for the mind-blowing amount of work it takes to get to the Olympics, and the intense concentration and ideal mindset required to pull off a medal. I hope for the sake of the athletes, that everyone has what they need to perform at their best.

At the same time, I think its ludicrous to claim that people sporting Free Tibet accessories are engaging in an act which would offend or distract anyone except perhaps some athletes and the Host Itself. I suppose it could be considered "just polite" to not insult your Olympic host, but the Tibet situation is such an obviously public problem, I would assume the IOC (International Olympic Committee) would have thought of that before deciding to have the games in Beijing.

I don't know anything (at all) about how the IOC decides where to have the games, or who benefits in what way. I assume, as always, that there is some financial benefit, probably for a select few (I dunno does any of the money go to China's poor? Please let me know). Naturally, it makes sense to stamp out the deviants if they're going to ruin the deal for those who benefit.

I'm personally really excited about this happening, despite the obvious problem for many involved. You know that something is going to happen. One person, or tons of people (wouldn't that be lovely!) are going to take some kind of stand here. I think it's unavoidable. It'll be tense, and exciting, and the first person that gets expelled from the games is going to become a martyr. This whole thing has given huge media attention to the Free Tibet cause.

Can you believe they're rioting in Tibet? What a statement that is, when a culture that is typically nonviolent decides it's had enough.

Looking at the Olympics as a place where all nations of the world can come together in unity, leaving our quarrels and politics behind us, begs an important question: Why do we have quarrels and politics we need to leave behind us? Why are Earth's countries fighting each other? Why are we killing each other? Why are there so many poor? Why isn't Tibet free?

And if this whole thing is about unity, why should we ignore the problems in the world rather than open our eyes to them? If anything, the Olympic Games should represent a place where we can gather to overcome our differences by relating to people our leaders usually claim are our enemies. If all we do is come together for friendly competition only to go home and return to the routine of hating and killing our neighbors, what have we learned? What's the point?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama

2008-04-10T15:19:00.000-07:00

Seeds of Compassion, April 11th - 15th
FRIDAY, APRIL 11 – DAY OF REVIEW AND LEARNING

From Knowledge to Compassion Action: What We All Can Do
His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be joined by leaders in compassion and empathy to discuss how parents and educators can bring compassion into the lives of children and families.

I'll be going to this event at Seeds of Compassion tomorrow! This convention has tons of really intriguing panels and speakers. Lucky for us, they're webcasting something for all 5 days. It's really great timing for me, as I've been having this slightly epic discussion on Nature vs Nurture. The theme of this convention is "providing the fundamental foundations for happiness and success in children, their lives and the society they live in", and helped me realize that it's not just one or the other, Nature OR Nurture, it's the Nature OF Nurture. There is a scientific basis for the assertion that our environment while growing up has an incredible impact on us, rather than, as a non-religious friend of mine said, the idea that "some people are just born bad and aren't worth trying to help".

You can see how much I'd be set off by such an individualistic statement. In any case, I'll take notes at the discussion (if I'm not going all buddhist fangirl on His Holiness), and post more on this topic later, including more of my thoughts on the epic discussion.

The Kids are Alright

2008-04-10T13:35:00.000-07:00

I have to say, I find it horribly ironic that at a rock concert attended by hundreds upon hundreds of angry, misunderstood, hormone-ridden, rebellious teenagers, that a fight breaks out between two adults. Good job guys, great role modeling.
Yeah, the kids are alright.

The F Word and Fat Haters

2008-04-04T14:51:00.000-07:00

I apologize that this isn't a well thought-out or well researched post, it's more a reactionary post about someone who obviously has issues and isn't therefore really worth my analysis. All the same, the personal is the political, so I'm on this.

For the first time ever, a "plus sized" (size 16 which is fairly average) model has made it into the
final round of the Miss England beauty pageant. Chloe Marshall! I think beauty contests are despicable in the first, but I figure if we're going to have them, it would be better if they included a wider interpretation of "beauty" (particularly after the revealing fame of Miss South Carolina last year). Generally people seem to be open to Chloe as a new and welcome interpretation (following Dove's recent campaign more people have been widening the definition), however I read one editorial (from the same source, although there are many articles about Chloe on the net), and I just wanted to punch this lady.

Yes, I know, it's a gossipy "news" source and this lady is just some random person but STILL! She tries to make the case that Chloe is a bad role model for girls because she "promotes obesity" and claims that the other stick-thin contestants are not overweight but even healthy. While it's true that obesity is a big problem in Western societies right now, it's also true that models have died from trying to attain this perceived perfection.

This woman, Monica Grenfell, is obviously a fat-hater. She's the type of person that looks at all overweight people as lazy, non-motivated and all around useless. I know people like this. She chalks Chloe's body size up to "eating too much", completely ignoring that some people are just larger and some people are just smaller, because of their GENES or other characteristics about their system. I find it odd that she could be a dietician while lacking basic biological knowledge like that.

My favorite part:

"As a judge on last year's Miss England contest, I was hugely impressed, not just by the beauty but by the skills dedication and determination of the contestants.
For example, most had raised huge sums of money for their favourite charities. They shone out as young women to be admired.
But can the same really be said of Chloe?
At 5ft 10in, Chloe should have a body mass index, or BMI, (indicating her levels of fat) of 20. Hers is 26.03."

To translate, she's saying that the contestants from last year had skills, dedication, determination, and social consciousness. Meanwhile, Chloe is just fat. She says nothing about any of her other qualities, ANYWHERE in her editorial, and uses the term "fat" 10 times while using the far less insulting term "overweight" only 4 times. Attacking the model with vicious terms like that really outs Grenfell as having not just a concern but a disgust for people who are overweight.

So apparently there's an "obesity epidemic". While I will absolutely not argue with the fact that Western nations, likely America in particular, have a BIG problem stemming from the marketing success of fast food, junk food and drinks, and chain restaurants, I also wonder if our definition of a healthy weight isn't based off of cultural ideals promoted by advertising rather than actual medical facts. According to the BMI (which was apparently recently proved as being no proof at all), I'm OBESE. Seriously! For those of you that know me, do you think of me as OBESE? I mean when I think obese I think 400lbs with serious health issues. I'm as healthy as can be according to the doc. Sure I think I'm over the natural weight for my body, and I know how I got there, but seriously, obese?!

In my opinion, this dietician is just a minion of the status quo and has completely internalized the backwards notions of health present in our society. Course, that's just me. I could be wrong. I am obese, after all.

All the Rabble About the Elections

2008-04-03T15:52:00.000-07:00

There's so many people saying what I think out there that I feel really superfluous making any post about it myself. All the same, I should try to keep this updated to provide a continuous narrative on the young radical perspective.

There's a lot of drama between the two Democrats, Clinton and Obama. I, and others, find this really unproductive and potentially a really bad thing for the Dems come election time. I'm still putting my money on Obama, but it's the principal of the thing. We need a big change right now, why all the infighting? I think it's despicable and really says to me that this really isn't about change, it's about who gets the prize.

To reiterate on a previous post, I'm really glad to see so many people excited over Obama, the Change Agent, regardless of my not being impressed with his nonplans for this Change. This excitement over Obama's rhetoric I'm hoping means that people are now willing to get involved in mass movements for change, and I'm hoping if Obama wins, that his fans are willing to hold him to his promises and more, rather than waiting for him to wave his magic wand.

All this stuff about Billary drives me nuts. It's not about him. Listening to an older lady on NPR this morning say how she likes Hillary because she was "a lady" about the whole infidelity issue. She "was silent when she should be, and stuck up for her husband when she should". Basically this lady likes Hillary because she didn't dump Bill after that fiasco. Now I don't give a crap about his personal life and I don't think it should ever have had any bearing on his presidency (hello you wanted to impeach him for fellatio and Bush gets nothing?), but I do think she should have kicked him to the curb. I don't think this has anything to do with her potential presidency either, but I do think it says a lot about her possible desire to pander to the family values crowd.

Meanwhile, the majority of folks are getting mixed up in the details of who did what between the Dems, bunches of other people are taking steps back and saying hey, this is a little stupid. Me, I'm taking two steps back and saying I really don't care about any of this, because none of the candidates are people I would trust to make the changes that we really need in this country and in the world. I want to think someone like Obama has the People's interests in mind, but the system just isn't set up to facilitate that. They all have obligations to the ruling class.

Why is there sugar in my coffee?

2008-03-06T15:36:00.000-08:00

This is something I need to look into. Why is it that all big food corporations - chain restaurants, chain coffee shops, fast food, etc - inject all their products with sugar or grease? I try to avoid these places like the plague in an attempt to eat more healthily and to shop locally. However the other day I had to meet a client at Starbucks, a company I haven't given money to since freshman year of college (when I gave them quite a lot of my money). Maybe it's because I've been living in Seattle but seriously the Chai I got had to be at least HALF made of sugar. I felt like a kid again, sucking down that Quik Strawberry Milk crap.

Now something I've never asked myself somehow : Why?
Is sugary food cheaper to manufacture?
Is it more addictive?
Is it really more appealing?

At the moment I'm sipping on a lovely spicy chai at Caffe Vita in Capitol Hill. No complaints here.

Income Tax? Federal Reserve? I don't get it.

2008-02-27T11:44:00.000-08:00

Let it be known that I have no idea how our system works. I'm completely in the dark, probably along with millions of other americans and self-proclaimed non-adults such as myself.

I haven't finished the documentary, but I'm about half an hour into America : From Freedom to Fascism (mmmmm, heavy-handed title). The basic premise seems to be that there is no law requiring Americans to pay Federal Income Tax, the money of which goes to rich bankers at the Federal Reserve. Or something. He interviews a bunch of people at what looks like Venice Beach, CA, and everyone says "if it weren't required, I wouldn't pay income taxes".

Certainly I agree if my hard earned tax charity is going to feed the rich and powerful and their bottomless bellies, I wouldn't pay it either. But I got the feeling (perhaps misunderstood) that these people weren't privy to that rumor when they answered. I always assumed my taxes went to build roads and pay for homeless shelters and bridges and public transportation. If that's the case, I'd be glad to pay income taxes! Even if it is 30% of what I make...

I wonder if people are unwilling to put money towards the enhancement of public life? I wonder if it's not really going there. Hm.

Put Your Vote Where Your Mouth Is

2008-02-15T08:57:00.000-08:00

Following is an email I recently sent to some of my friends and family:

I apologize in advance because this is largely unsolicited "preaching" on my part, but something really exciting is going on in America right now and most of you have either talked to me about the election or about politics in general and I really wanted to share my thoughts with you.

I went to an ISO (International Socialist Organization) event last night called "From Civil Rights to Black Power : Lessons for the Fight Against Racism" with Jessie Hagopian, an amazing speaker and ISO member, and Aaron Dixon, who founded the Seattle Black Panthers when he was 19, among a long list of other notable accomplishments. Although they talked a lot about history and racism, the election - and Obama in particular - was a big topic. This has been a weird year for me because I have friends and family who are emailing me saying "Please vote for Obama!" or "I'm voting for Hillary, she's amazing!". People are really excited about this election and it seems in particular people are absolutely in love with Obama, the "candidate for change".

What's been happening inside my head when people tell me how excited they are is that I turn into cynical Iris. I think about all of the things that I've come to believe both before and after I decided I was a Socialist. I think that the two party system is an illusion of choice between two rich politicians who owe nothing to anyone except the megacorporations that funded their campaign and the other rich, mostly white male people already in government positions. I think how I feel that voting in this kind of system is actually morally wrong. I think that even if there was such a thing as a well intentioned and talented potential for president, once they got into office they wouldn't be able to make any real changes anyway because the forces around them are far too strong.

But I'm not writing this email to try to convince anyone not to vote (I was hoping you would do it so that I don't have to), or that we must overthrow the capitalist pig dogs, or even that the system doesn't work. Last night the ISO showed me the err of my ways, so to speak, so I'm writing to talk to you about the same things Obama is talking to you about. It's really interesting to me that a mainstream politician is using a lot of the same words of the radical left, an example from a recent speech is that "change doesn't come from above, change must come from below". Socialists and other activists have been trying to tell people this stuff for years. It's ironic that Obama, the epitome of change from above, is saying these things, but I agree with him.

What's important to know is that Obama is filling a void left by the Bush administration. What he's saying is really resonating with people who have come out in record numbers to see him speak. It sounds like he started out fairly moderately, but had to push his campaign left in reaction to people's demands. This is amazing. This means that people in America really do want change, and politicians are being forced to react to this.

So we come to the big question: can Obama, or Hillary (or any candidate for that matter) change the world with their presidency? I'm still on the fence about exactly how much a president can influence the world on their own, although my friend John made a really good point in a recent, very thoughtful blog post, equating the president with a film director. What I do know is that presidents tend to get a lot of credit for caving into the demands of mass social movements. Nothing ever gets done from one person alone and the heroification of many of our historical figures masks that "change must come from below". From us.

I think its great that people are getting really excited about this election. I think its great that people love Obama, or Love Hillary, or Ron Paul or whoever. The reason is because people are finally fed up with the what's happened in the past 7 years (and potentially more than just that). People are radicalizing. People are PISSED. And candidates are responding to those demands, but I want you all to understand that as someone told me, "this is an election campaign, not a movement".

Whoever gets elected by promising change, we're going to have to continue to make demands because they aren't just going to magically make everything better. As Jessie said last night, we don't know whether he will follow through or not, but "which way he goes really depends on what we do". Anyone excited about change should vote, yes, but we should also get involved because just voting isn't going to change anything. There is a mass social movement to end the war, there is a mass social movement waiting to happen for universal health care, there are activist groups everywhere working towards change.

I'm certainly not accusing anyone of not making an appropriate level of effort - I know many of you are, and frankly I haven't talked to you much about it, and I'm certainly not an expert by any means. What I am saying is that someone has literally begged me to vote for Obama because he's going to make this or that happen, and I think this is misdirected energy. I want to know what you think so please let this be an opening for discussion if you agree or disagree or whatever.

To conclude I'll summarize something that was said in a recent debate in answer to the question "If Martin Luther King were alive today, why would he endorse you?". Obama's answer was that Martin Luther King wouldn't vote for any of us, he would be building a movement.

PS. I think in the future, this is how we should settle our differences.

Further New Beginnings

2008-02-09T18:25:00.000-08:00

I'm 24 years old and female with some gender ambiguity. I have a college degree, though I feel most heavily affected by my minor in Sociology. I've lived in five different cities in three states and I attended seven different schools including two high schools and three colleges. I've only been overseas once, to visit a small town in Japan. My parents are both art teachers and musicians. I want to be a musician. My parents were not religious, although my dad tried to teach me Native American traditions and my mom New Age and Astrology traditions. I wasn't interested in politics until I found myself talking philosophy with people twice my age. I wasn't interested in activism until someone told me to boycott Exxon-Mobile. I didn't have any context for 9/11 when it happened. I didn't get really excited about changing the world until I got a sociological perspective.