I knew when I heard that President Obama had announced a new policy for immigration what I would see coming from his critics. And of course, the bile and bigotry has flowed through my Facebook stream and Twitter as predicted. If you're one of those posting that crap, you're certainly free to do so, but I urge you to reconsider your position. For one thing, I think the Slacktivist hit the nail on the head in calling out the hypocrisy of Americans who revile "rule-breaking immigrants" while celebrating themselves as motivate go-getters - he has suggested a better name for both groups on his blog.
But more immediately, I think we need to recognize that the President is doing the right thing for the sub-group of children of immigrants who were moved here before they were able to make the decision whether to do so - either legally or not - for themselves. My cousin is married to one of these "illegal kids." He found out he was here illegally when he was 18, and went to marry my cousin; he had been here for 15 years and did not know he wasn't supposed to be here - though he felt pretty stupid when he looked back and saw all of the obvious clues.
Unfortunately for him (and for my cousin) the whole myth of the "anchor baby" isn't true; and to answer those who ask "why don't you just go through proper channels like everyone else," the trouble is that there are no "proper channels" for someone like him. The "proper channel" would have been to abandon his new wife and infant for the 7 to 10 years that it would take for him to leave the States and re-apply for admission. He had nowhere to go in Mexico - his Spanish was okay, but he didn't know anyone there, and would have had no where to live, no job, no family, no way to support himself or his wife and kid, etc.
So he was stuck between two lousy choices, and he made the one I would have made: stay with the wife and kids, support my family, stay out of trouble, and hope that since this is such a "hot issue" the U.S. Congress would come up with a plan. George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, sounded like they had the right idea, but just lacked the Constitutional power to do anything about it; and the Congress has lacked the cojones to act in the face of widespread racism.
By the way, this family I'm describing is largely Southern Baptist (myself being an exception) and tends to vote Republican. My cousin's first pregnancy was scandalous, but "the right thing to do" was for the boy to marry the girl and support her, and they stepped up to help as much as they could. One thing they could not do: they couldn't help change a "legal status" that the law didn't recognize.
Oh, but what about the law these people were and are breaking? I don't want you to think I am ignoring the law... but did you know it is only a misdemeanor? Speeding is more dangerous, and littering does more damage. Would you insist that everyone stop driving until we hold all of the speeders accountable for their crime?
Do you want to hold people accountable for the identity theft, tax evasion, and fraudulent claim of benefits? Great - let's do that! But you also need to make it so that a kid who turns 18 and finds out they aren't actually a citizen of the only home they've ever known can pay the fine for his misdemeanor, start the naturalization process - and still stay to support his American family. Take into account the fact that a minor isn't responsible for the identity theft his parents committed; and focus the harshest punishments on the drug runners, human smugglers, and money launderers (who currently tend to go free precisely because we fail to make a legal distinction between them and the trespassers). My cousin's husband finally found a way to return to Mexico and enter the country legally after only 6 months; but he had to wait until the kids were old enough and the family was established enough to take that leap.
And please, please stop telling me that your position on this isn't racist. I see the things you're posting and saying - the stereotypes of the macho thugs, illiterate migrants, and other tropes you trot out to show how different these people are. It's like you forgot how your Irish and Eastern European ancestors were treated by the white protestants in their day.
You don't have to like Obama or support Democrats to get this problem fixed, but you should certainly reconsider your virulent anti-immigrant stance, and tell your representatives to come up with a better plan. Because we are better than the way we have been behaving for far too long.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Alone in a Crowd
"We have an informal association of radically individualistic rationalists, but we've reached a plateau. Now we need to find a way to come together with a unified vision for a better world, even if we have to sacrifice 'every man for himself'." - Jason Torpy, President of the Military Association of Atheists & FreethinkersI keep saying that I don't like groups. I don't. With a group comes baggage - labels, commitments, disappointments, betrayals (whether large or petty) and miscommunication. With a group comes scrutiny of your motives, judgment of your choices, obligation of your time and effort, and no real privacy.
And yet...
"Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships... The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all." - from The Humanist Manifesto IIII've said for years (though not always out loud) that I don't need a supernatural being, and I don't need the irrational, institutionalized group with its fear and guilt being imposed from outside in order to control what they have no business controlling.
I managed to break free of the groups I was raised to believe in - ironically, by joining other groups - and I've found my way to where I am now. I follow my gut, and I strive to make the best choices; I am good, except when I fail, and when I do, I fix it as best as I can.
I feel like I'm in a good place. I like it here, and have no real need to drag anyone else along who doesn't want to be here. I don't need a group to affirm or support who or what I am. I simply am, and I have come through pain and fire to get here - on my own, without any mystical help.
And yet...
Have I really been on my own? There has been no mystical help, but my personal journey has taken me through the lives of many others who have helped me along the way. I've written about many of them, in some form or another. Some have slept by my side; others I have never met in real life. But we've shared time, and ideas, and while I can't guarantee I've always enriched their lives, they've certainly played a role in enriching mine.
But they're people. And in groups, they behave unpredictably, and cannot be completely trusted - so my instinct is to retreat, taking only what I need from them and giving back the minimum necessary. I share my words on the internet, I measure my time carefully out for some, and try to devote myself to a few who really seem to appreciate me - and whom I appreciate in return. And that brings me to the puzzle I'm facing right now.
Because, you see, while I have not tried to advertise, proselytize, witness, or otherwise claim any kind of mantle of wisdom, I still find that people approach me - behind the scenes, offline, sotto voce - because I'm visible with my lack of belief and I express the questions they are afraid to ask. I haven't defined myself, I won't accept a label willingly, I argue constantly, and I'm confusing as all get out - but still they ask me for ideas and advice. They are searching, and they've come to me. But what do I have to tell them?
That's the question I've avoided for so long. What do I have to offer to others; what is it that they sense in me that they think will help them?
I was not able to attend the Reason Rally in DC a few months ago. Our calendar was triple-booked that weekend, but the following weekend saw us sitting at home with little to do, so while my lovely bride caught up on some scrap-booking, I watched the videos from the Rally. She listened across the room as Adam Savage (probably our favorite speech), PZ Myers, Hemant Mehta, Sean Faircloth, and Richard Dawkins spoke. They varied from the upbeat and positive, to the thoughtful and scholarly, and to the fire-breathing and angry. I was enjoying it immensely, and watching the crowd, and wishing I could have gone.
At some point, I realized she had stopped working, and was just listening intently. I thought that I must be annoying her with the videos. I was about to offer to put on some music or do something else - but then she said:
"I had no idea there were so many people out there who believe what I do."It almost broke my heart to hear my dearest companion, and best friend across two decades say something like that. She sounded alone. And that's what my friends sound like when they tell me privately how they enjoy my posts on Facebook, my stories here on the blog, or my comments on Twitter. They sound slightly shocked that they are not alone.
“Many people need desperately to receive this message: 'I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, Timequake (Honorary president of the American Humanist Association)And that's the answer.
It doesn't matter to me if you "agree with me" - whatever that meaningless phrase has come to represent - or if you believe what I believe about legal points, political machinations, science, or history. I don't care if you like the same music, writers, movies, or art. But if you feel like you are alone in your doubt, if you feel lost in a cold universe, or if you are just tired of living inside of lies for the sake of the group around you - if you're lonely in a crowd... I can tell you that you're not the only one. That's my gift; I can be here, visible, letting you see and hear that I am here.
For whatever it may be worth, I'm joining a couple of groups. I will see what I can learn from them, and what I can bring to the table. I don't intend to give more than I have; I certainly won't be impressing anyone with my organizational or time-management skills. I don't intend to bend or conform; I certainly won't wear a uniform or toe any lines. I won't drag anyone into it with me if they don't want to go. I'll just do what I do best: think, read, share, and laugh.
But I can't hide in plain sight without making sure that those around me know this:
You are not alone.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
I saw that someone had posted the 76 Things Banned in Leviticus, and wanted to see how I scored.
(If you want to share yours in the comments, I'll happily approve them.)
(If you want to share yours in the comments, I'll happily approve them.)
- 3. Eating fat (3:17) - BACON: it's worth hell.
- 4. Eating blood (3:17) - did this one in England; not worth hell, unless I meet a Klingon
- 6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1) - that would be hearsay, and it is inadmissable
- 7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2) - how the hell do I wash my dog??
- 8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4) - I promise not to do that. D'OH!
- 11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1) - have you seen our firepit?
- 12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) - submitted by the Barber's Union of Judea (not to be confused with the Judean Barber's Union - they're splitters)
- 13. Tearing your clothes (10:6) - I am clumsy.
- 14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9) - LOL, Catholics!
- 15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (11:4-7) - Again -Bacon is worth Hell. God *really* needs to set the bar a little lower.
- 16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8) - Oink.
- 17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) - Sushi was NOT worth Hell.
- 20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27) - LOL, Del Taco
- 36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) - No comment; I'm not incriminating anyone else.
- 38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21) - ...but I took it back. Does Molek do "take-backs"?
- 41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4) - My birthday present on my 5th birthday: C-3PO action figure.
- 45. Lying (19:11) - I always do this. #seewhatIdidthere
- 46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
- 50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15) - Uh-oh - between the Tea Party and OWS, we're ALL guilty of this one.
- 51. Spreading slander (19:16) - I forwarded a FoxNews link once.
- 52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16) - I drive a car. Duh.
- 53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18) - You won't see it coming, either, you bastard.
- 54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) - With my fashion sense? Yeah, I've probably done this.
- 55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19) - Does singing "Skullcrusher Mountain" count? "I made this half-pony/half-monkey monster to please you..."
- 56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) - It shouldn't count if you forget to water them and they die.
- 59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26) LOL, "Left Behind" series
- 60. Trimming your beard (19:27) - Well, Duh.
- 61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
- 62. Getting tattoos (19:28) - Oh, wait - I thought this said "tacos." Kater is the tattooed one.
- 64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31) - Madame Brent read my tarot once.
- 65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32) - The whole TIME?
- 66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34) - I am mean to Koreans.
- 67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) - Oh, like YOUR bathroom is a house of honesty!
- 68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9) - I swear to God it was just an Impedimenta (oops... #46 again.)
- 70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11) - Wait, now - is the priest playing a dead body, like in the musical version of "Weekend at Bernies" starring Father Guido Sarducci? Or is the dead body dressed as a priest? Or am I the dead priest? Well, she looked 18...
- 72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3) - God don't pay Sunday shift differential.
- 73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14) - Gleefully - I suspect this post alone counts. And if the stones start flying, that will only make me do it more loudly and often.
- 74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22) - LOL, turning the other cheek!
So I scored... 35 (or did I violate #67 again?). I'd try to up that, but there are a lot of non-existent and existing people I don't want to fuck on that list. I'll have to be content with low-30's grade evil. With a small "e"...
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Are You What You Eat?
I don't often have the chance to take a position that puts me on the "side" of the conservatives, but here's one:
My opinion on this is that the government (in this case, the municipal government) oversteps its authority when it bans things. Furthermore, prohibition does not work; for evidence of this, I submit the 18th and 21st Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the dismal failure of the "War on Drugs."
The lessons learned from those examples should apply to food and health policy, as well. I appreciate the intent, but as the Scientific American recently pointed out, the government is working against itself on these issues:
For most people, finding out what's what is hard. Trying to slog through it or read other opinions on it usually results in throwing one's hands up in despair, and voting on other issues. People tend to prefer to let their party frame the problems while ignoring the root problems describing in that Scientific American editorial. In an election year (which is coincidentally exactly when these Farm Bills seem to come up for renewal), it's all but impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the policies that need to be changed.
But actually changing policy is only half the problem anyway, when it comes to addressing obesity and health. Many folks claim that if the government stayed out of things and let people make up their own minds about things, that people would make the better decisions for themselves. I find this theory does not often play out that way, as people tend to be short-sighted, self-destructive, and prone to rationalization. In addition to sound policies creating a healthier marketplace, people need to focus on their habits, too - which really is (or should be) beyond the scope of our government.
Science is always inexact, and the human body is one of the most complex of complex systems - even more complex that food policy legislation! While I like to think I'm smart and capable of sorting these things out, I personally get a lot of information from friends who write more intelligently on this (like Chef Shawn) or defer to folks who write about managing their own small farms (like Sharon Astyk of Casaubon's Book). It's a lot of work, but I suspect that anyone who digs in and asks questions will learn that most of the hotly debated issues that we keep battling would solve themselves if we paid more attention to this one.
New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks
Conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and arthritis are strongly correlated with excess poundage and run up medical bills of nearly $150 billion every year. The government has poured billions of dollars into dietary campaigns, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new MyPlate recommendation (half of daily food consumption should be fruits and vegetables) to programs aimed at providing more produce in schools and in military cafeterias.
Agricultural subsidies undercut those efforts by skewing the market in favor of unhealthful calories. Much of the food we have to choose from—and how much it costs—is determined by the 1,770-page, almost $300-billion Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (commonly known as the “farm bill”). This piece of legislation, up for renewal this year, covers everything from nutrition assistance programs to land conservation efforts.The largest problem with trying to address the Farm Bill's many flaws is that it is so large and covers so much ground. It's easy enough to find it online and read it... but how many people are going to do that? So while people talk about elements within it all the time - food stamps, nutritional assistance, food safety, conservation, and subsidies - few realize that this bill even exists. And yet it is central to so many debates - all controversial, and all politically tied to planks in every platform.
For most people, finding out what's what is hard. Trying to slog through it or read other opinions on it usually results in throwing one's hands up in despair, and voting on other issues. People tend to prefer to let their party frame the problems while ignoring the root problems describing in that Scientific American editorial. In an election year (which is coincidentally exactly when these Farm Bills seem to come up for renewal), it's all but impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the policies that need to be changed.
But actually changing policy is only half the problem anyway, when it comes to addressing obesity and health. Many folks claim that if the government stayed out of things and let people make up their own minds about things, that people would make the better decisions for themselves. I find this theory does not often play out that way, as people tend to be short-sighted, self-destructive, and prone to rationalization. In addition to sound policies creating a healthier marketplace, people need to focus on their habits, too - which really is (or should be) beyond the scope of our government.
Science is always inexact, and the human body is one of the most complex of complex systems - even more complex that food policy legislation! While I like to think I'm smart and capable of sorting these things out, I personally get a lot of information from friends who write more intelligently on this (like Chef Shawn) or defer to folks who write about managing their own small farms (like Sharon Astyk of Casaubon's Book). It's a lot of work, but I suspect that anyone who digs in and asks questions will learn that most of the hotly debated issues that we keep battling would solve themselves if we paid more attention to this one.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Lb4Lb#11 - The Trouble With Hippies
I was not a "child of the '60's" by any stretch of the imagination.
My exposure to the 1960s was solely through the filter of my very straight-laced parents and their record collection: Dean Martin, The Monkees, Glen Campbell, Cher, Peter, Paul and Mary, and... Leonard Nimoy. Yes. THAT Leonard Nimoy. The Way I Feel (you should find the LP some time and check it out). We had a couple of Beatles records, but as I later discovered, they fell out of favor after John Lennon's remark about being "bigger than Jesus" - and that copy of Rubber Soul was as close as I got to "counter-culture" until high school.
Thinking positivity
If you wanna be with me
I'll take you to the promised land
Come on baby take my hand
Stop Draggin AroundOf course, I did grow up in the 1980s, and nostalgia for "flower power" was all the rage. I missed a lot of that because our family lived out in the sticks, and we didn't have a VCR until 1989 - so while my friends were into the Vietnam-era war pics and Cheech & Chong, I was mostly sitting home, not a part of the whole scene.
Not that I wanted any part of it - that silly hippy-dippy drug culture stuff was for sinners. I was deep into my church and considered myself above all of that nonsense. I saw myself as above it all, and I resisted "temptation" like a good boy.
I've been lost in the name of love
And we kill our brothers daily in the name of god
We'd better chill before we take on some tribulation
And if we realized
Then we'd make a little love
now sing
What The Fuck Are We SayingPuberty changes things. That is an intentional understatement.
It was easy to dismiss the New Age philosophy and all of the political talk of the 1960s with the benefit of hindsight (and lots of coaching from Grandpa and my church family), but hormones bring home a truth that is hard to ignore. Feeling my body take over my mind in so many ways made me understand that "control" is not simply a matter of following rules. I began to recognize that the things people feel are real to them - and unless you've felt what they feel, you can't judge them.
My mama said
That it's good to be fruitful
But my mama said
Don't take more than a mouthful
And my mama said
That it's good to be natural
And my mama said
That it's good to be factual
Always On The RunAfter I started questioning my principles, I was freed to explore things that I had always disdained. Music was the most exciting area to explore, because it felt both defiant and safe; I could try out crazy ideas without necessarily DOING crazy things. I could listen to stories and feelings and see places and pieces of history that had passed me by while I was trying to fit the world inside my Bible.
Some things are easier to get into than others, though, and a lot of the really revolutionary, underground, and radical stuff from the Summer of Love and the early 1970s still shocked my sensibilities. I couldn't get into Lennon's politically charged anthems, I couldn't grasp Jimi's wild guitar work, and I really had no idea what to make of Zeppelin. There were singles that I liked, but there was so much out there - and much of it was so FAR out there - that I couldn't figure out where to start.
And there was another wrinkle to this musical blockage.
A white Southern Baptist kid never feels comfortable with certain things. What it is they are uncomfortable with will vary, but for me, it is Soul music. It's not that I don't like it, but rather that I become self-conciously hyper-aware while I am listening to it that I am an awkward white kid, and that something deeply sexual is happening that I should probably not be exposed to. Much of the Sixties vibe revolves around an exploration of Soul. Sometimes it's more Blues, sometimes it's covered up by the bombast of Rock; but underneath it all is the sexually charged subtext of black people and their freedom from the Puritanical roots that my ancestors instilled in their descendants.
So many tears I've cried
So much pain inside
Baby it ain't over 'til it's over
So many years we've tried
And kept our love alive
'Cause Baby it ain't over 'til it's over
It Ain't Over Til It's OverAll of which brings me to my point: why Mama Said is such an important album to me. With all of these many paragraphs of prologue, you might be expecting something deep, but like the counter-culture, and hippies, and free love and drugs, there's really not much beneath the surface.
There is an important thing inside all of us that sets limits. For people like me, those limits can sometimes be deeply ingrained, almost like a moat, and it takes something special to bridge the gap to the other side. Lenny's sophomore album made these things safe for me.
That was all I needed.
You say you can't trust me
Have you tried?
You say you don't love me
That's a lie
There are so many so many rainbows
That we were to climb
But baby baby why can't we survive?
We've got to get our heads untangled
And free our state of mind
The Difference Is WhyLenny's music is not deep - the lyrics border on vapid, and the rhymes are sometimes forced to the point of ridiculousness. The music has been widely criticized as being derivative of Hendrix and Zeppelin, and there's no doubt that this is true.
But.
For a white suburban Southern Baptist kid intimidated by his sexuality and the wide world he was facing, Mama Said gave me a place to relate and unwind. It didn't matter that this guy was singing - in falsetto! - about sex, because it was relatively harmless. (At least compared to Prince.) And it didn't matter that the guitars were only a little loud (courtesy of Slash), because these songs rocked! It felt to me like what it was for Lenny: a celebration of a lot of really good things.
The trouble with hippies is that they tend to be shallow and frivolous. But somehow, the magic of this album was that it didn't have to be deep or important. It wanders through Fields of Joy, and if you learn to relax, you will find that the limits you set for yourself don't have to be shattered to be softened. You don't have to destroy yourself to grow. You can just take it as it comes.
And there's really nothing wrong with that at all.
My exposure to the 1960s was solely through the filter of my very straight-laced parents and their record collection: Dean Martin, The Monkees, Glen Campbell, Cher, Peter, Paul and Mary, and... Leonard Nimoy. Yes. THAT Leonard Nimoy. The Way I Feel (you should find the LP some time and check it out). We had a couple of Beatles records, but as I later discovered, they fell out of favor after John Lennon's remark about being "bigger than Jesus" - and that copy of Rubber Soul was as close as I got to "counter-culture" until high school.
Thinking positivity
If you wanna be with me
I'll take you to the promised land
Come on baby take my hand
Stop Draggin AroundOf course, I did grow up in the 1980s, and nostalgia for "flower power" was all the rage. I missed a lot of that because our family lived out in the sticks, and we didn't have a VCR until 1989 - so while my friends were into the Vietnam-era war pics and Cheech & Chong, I was mostly sitting home, not a part of the whole scene.
Not that I wanted any part of it - that silly hippy-dippy drug culture stuff was for sinners. I was deep into my church and considered myself above all of that nonsense. I saw myself as above it all, and I resisted "temptation" like a good boy.
I've been lost in the name of love
And we kill our brothers daily in the name of god
We'd better chill before we take on some tribulation
And if we realized
Then we'd make a little love
now sing
What The Fuck Are We SayingPuberty changes things. That is an intentional understatement.
It was easy to dismiss the New Age philosophy and all of the political talk of the 1960s with the benefit of hindsight (and lots of coaching from Grandpa and my church family), but hormones bring home a truth that is hard to ignore. Feeling my body take over my mind in so many ways made me understand that "control" is not simply a matter of following rules. I began to recognize that the things people feel are real to them - and unless you've felt what they feel, you can't judge them.
My mama said
That it's good to be fruitful
But my mama said
Don't take more than a mouthful
And my mama said
That it's good to be natural
And my mama said
That it's good to be factual
Always On The RunAfter I started questioning my principles, I was freed to explore things that I had always disdained. Music was the most exciting area to explore, because it felt both defiant and safe; I could try out crazy ideas without necessarily DOING crazy things. I could listen to stories and feelings and see places and pieces of history that had passed me by while I was trying to fit the world inside my Bible.
Some things are easier to get into than others, though, and a lot of the really revolutionary, underground, and radical stuff from the Summer of Love and the early 1970s still shocked my sensibilities. I couldn't get into Lennon's politically charged anthems, I couldn't grasp Jimi's wild guitar work, and I really had no idea what to make of Zeppelin. There were singles that I liked, but there was so much out there - and much of it was so FAR out there - that I couldn't figure out where to start.
And there was another wrinkle to this musical blockage.
A white Southern Baptist kid never feels comfortable with certain things. What it is they are uncomfortable with will vary, but for me, it is Soul music. It's not that I don't like it, but rather that I become self-conciously hyper-aware while I am listening to it that I am an awkward white kid, and that something deeply sexual is happening that I should probably not be exposed to. Much of the Sixties vibe revolves around an exploration of Soul. Sometimes it's more Blues, sometimes it's covered up by the bombast of Rock; but underneath it all is the sexually charged subtext of black people and their freedom from the Puritanical roots that my ancestors instilled in their descendants.
So many tears I've cried
So much pain inside
Baby it ain't over 'til it's over
So many years we've tried
And kept our love alive
'Cause Baby it ain't over 'til it's over
It Ain't Over Til It's OverAll of which brings me to my point: why Mama Said is such an important album to me. With all of these many paragraphs of prologue, you might be expecting something deep, but like the counter-culture, and hippies, and free love and drugs, there's really not much beneath the surface.
There is an important thing inside all of us that sets limits. For people like me, those limits can sometimes be deeply ingrained, almost like a moat, and it takes something special to bridge the gap to the other side. Lenny's sophomore album made these things safe for me.
That was all I needed.
You say you can't trust me
Have you tried?
You say you don't love me
That's a lie
There are so many so many rainbows
That we were to climb
But baby baby why can't we survive?
We've got to get our heads untangled
And free our state of mind
The Difference Is WhyLenny's music is not deep - the lyrics border on vapid, and the rhymes are sometimes forced to the point of ridiculousness. The music has been widely criticized as being derivative of Hendrix and Zeppelin, and there's no doubt that this is true.
But.
For a white suburban Southern Baptist kid intimidated by his sexuality and the wide world he was facing, Mama Said gave me a place to relate and unwind. It didn't matter that this guy was singing - in falsetto! - about sex, because it was relatively harmless. (At least compared to Prince.) And it didn't matter that the guitars were only a little loud (courtesy of Slash), because these songs rocked! It felt to me like what it was for Lenny: a celebration of a lot of really good things.
The trouble with hippies is that they tend to be shallow and frivolous. But somehow, the magic of this album was that it didn't have to be deep or important. It wanders through Fields of Joy, and if you learn to relax, you will find that the limits you set for yourself don't have to be shattered to be softened. You don't have to destroy yourself to grow. You can just take it as it comes.
And there's really nothing wrong with that at all.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
You Might Even Have Fun
The Washington Post has this column discussing nine ideas for "fixing" our political problems. First among the ideas they say Won't Work is this persistent notion that a Third Party candidate will come along and topple the equally corrupt and repellent Republican/Democrat paradigm. As they say, "The third-party fantasy is of a courageous political leader who could persuade Americans to support..." a slate of populist, moderate issues.
If it isn't clear from my earlier writings, I've been hopeful about that happening myself. But I agree that this non-existent Third Party won't be able to do this from the top down. Even if a group could rally behind a candidate, that person would have no political support structure in office. Who would they nominate for the hundreds of Cabinet and judicial positions? Who would a Third Party candidate have in Congress to propose and manage their legislative goals?
The Post also points out how the experiment of Americans Elect to use the internet as a tool to rally around these erstwhile Third Party aspirants has largely failed. Personally, I think they should have spent their money on a secure website that lets members build a profile of their various beliefs/opinions/
There are some sites like this out there already - you can play with sites like Select Smart 2012, Ontheissues.org, Glassbooth.org, and even the USA Today Match game, just to name a couple - but they tend to use slanted test questions that lump people into broad categories or offer a superficial percentage of "how similar" they are to the mainstream candidates. I'm talking about a more academically rigorous set of questions designed to get past the labels people adopt and find out what their "ideal candidate" would look like - then compare that "ideal" to the profiles of available candidates.
Of the sites that exist, Glassbooth starts out close to what I would envision as the "getting started" phase; when you set up your profile on Tad's Educated Voter site, you would get a slate of a dozen or so issues that you can rate on a scale from "Care deeply" to "Deep apathy" - and mark whether you are eligible or willing to run for public office. Then over time, the app would notify members of new questions or issues, send out "straw polls," and basically ask things intended to refine everyone's profile and draw out something deeper than "do you support/oppose gay marriage" or "support/oppose Big Government" - loaded questions with a lot of hidden nuance.
The trick would be to get actual candidates to build a profile, too, so they could be compared in a more realistic way to potential constituents. This would be easier to do at local levels, in my opinion. Or, even better, if you want to really harness the 'Net and enable true democracy, this site should match members up with any office for which they are eligible to run. If they are interested, they can identify themselves on the site as Candidates, and let their profile get matched to those of potential voters - so everyone involved could see a deeper, more accurate comparison with a real candidate AND that candidate could gauge the likely level of support they could get before throwing in their hat.
If it isn't clear from my earlier writings, I've been hopeful about that happening myself. But I agree that this non-existent Third Party won't be able to do this from the top down. Even if a group could rally behind a candidate, that person would have no political support structure in office. Who would they nominate for the hundreds of Cabinet and judicial positions? Who would a Third Party candidate have in Congress to propose and manage their legislative goals?
The Post also points out how the experiment of Americans Elect to use the internet as a tool to rally around these erstwhile Third Party aspirants has largely failed. Personally, I think they should have spent their money on a secure website that lets members build a profile of their various beliefs/opinions/
There are some sites like this out there already - you can play with sites like Select Smart 2012, Ontheissues.org, Glassbooth.org, and even the USA Today Match game, just to name a couple - but they tend to use slanted test questions that lump people into broad categories or offer a superficial percentage of "how similar" they are to the mainstream candidates. I'm talking about a more academically rigorous set of questions designed to get past the labels people adopt and find out what their "ideal candidate" would look like - then compare that "ideal" to the profiles of available candidates.
Of the sites that exist, Glassbooth starts out close to what I would envision as the "getting started" phase; when you set up your profile on Tad's Educated Voter site, you would get a slate of a dozen or so issues that you can rate on a scale from "Care deeply" to "Deep apathy" - and mark whether you are eligible or willing to run for public office. Then over time, the app would notify members of new questions or issues, send out "straw polls," and basically ask things intended to refine everyone's profile and draw out something deeper than "do you support/oppose gay marriage" or "support/oppose Big Government" - loaded questions with a lot of hidden nuance.
The trick would be to get actual candidates to build a profile, too, so they could be compared in a more realistic way to potential constituents. This would be easier to do at local levels, in my opinion. Or, even better, if you want to really harness the 'Net and enable true democracy, this site should match members up with any office for which they are eligible to run. If they are interested, they can identify themselves on the site as Candidates, and let their profile get matched to those of potential voters - so everyone involved could see a deeper, more accurate comparison with a real candidate AND that candidate could gauge the likely level of support they could get before throwing in their hat.
That part of the site - the collecting of information about people's opinions - has a lot of possibilities, both for use and abuse. Protecting User privacy and avoiding even the faintest whiff of sponsorship-corruption would be crucial. But if you can build that trust, and give people reliable guidance, I think that would be of enough value to people that they would sign up - at least for the initial curiosity factor.
But my point is that we've already seen viral quiz-taking, political activity apps, and a wide variety of social networking sites that nobody thought would survive take off in the last several years. If this "Candidate Match-making" site were built, I have no doubt it could be turned into something truly useful for both voter education and for improving voter participation in state & local politics. To me, the possibility of being able to see what a candidate really thinks before I vote for her would be worth the effort of putting together my own profile. Once there is a large enough community base, I'm sure the idea that any potential candidate could reach out to an anonymous, but still vetted, group of potential voters and ask them to share the link to their campaign materials FOR FREE would be worth the effort of putting together their profile.
Now, to go back to that Post article, think about the other things on their list of ideas that will/won't work that would be fixed by a system like the one I just described. If the site itself is non-partisan and non-profit, wouldn't that address some of the campaign finance and voter participation issues? If voters are engaged, AND inspired to run, wouldn't that competition address the Term Limits issue? And who knows... a lot of people who are bored by our current system might actually enjoy this.
I know a lot of people in web design, and a lot of people who have studied political sciences and sociology - I have no doubt they could join forces (even if they disagree on party politics) and come up with the right mix of questions, the right user interface, and the right API to tie into Facebook and Twitter. I offer myself as a User/Guinea Pig if you launch one of these sites.
Who knows... it might actually help. And you might even have fun doing it.
Monday, May 14, 2012
We Are Better Than That
Someone on the radio was pleading his case to change public policy tonight, and while I can't quite recall the topic, I remember thinking, "Yeah, right, buddy. In today's political climate, even if you're right, you will get shot down for suggesting the government try to change THAT. And then he said something that both won and lost his argument for him all at once:
We're better than that.
I stopped listening to the news at that point, and must have switched over to the ipod. But I kept hearing him say it, over and over. You could hear in his voice that he didn't just think he was right - he knew it - but he also knew that ultimately he would lose whatever battle he was fighting. He would lose because you can't force people to do the right thing. We're Americans, and you can't tell us what to do.
We're better than that.
I remember visiting my grandparents in 2001. Grandpa's health was failing. He suffered from Alzheimer's, joint ailments, and we didn't know it at the time, but he had lung cancer. That was what killed him - even though he had given up cigarettes in the 1950s.
He and grandma were living in an RV on a campsite located on the San Carlos Apache Reservation near Peridot, Arizona. Uncle Russ was having to drive out there once a week (about 50 miles from Phoenix) to get him, take him to his medical appointments at the VA Clinic in Globe, and take him back home. It was summer, and we sat with squirming babies in the tiny motor home, visiting beaming elderly people in 95 degree heat with two little vent fans blowing on the six of us.
I asked them why they didn't let the family put them up in a place in town? We could visit more often, they'd be more comfortable, and we insisted it wouldn't be a financial burden. Grandma recoiled. "Oh, we couldn't live in an apartment in the city!" she said, in a tone that said, "That's just too low class."
We're better than that.
These days, I hear people complaining about our alleged "Big Government." They sneer about the so-called nanny state, insisting that if people were given all the options and left alone, they would chose the best path for themselves. This runs against all evidence to the contrary, of course, as most people tend to make their decisions based on everything but logic and reason.
People buy what they want, whether they can afford it or not, because it appeals to them. They eat what they want because it tastes good, or is cheap - not because it will make them healthy. They rationalize their actions day and night, voting to deny others the right to do what they are sneaking around behind their spouses' backs to do. They drive too fast, playing with phones and drinks and makeup; they are fine to drive because they only had a few.
We're better than that.
I watched people changing lanes without using turn signals, and speeding through the rain, and I thought about that statement. What an assertion of defiant, unreasoning hope. What a ridiculous notion. Both true and false, the unassailable losing argument of the desperate.
I watch people bristle at civility campaigns, and defend the bullies running for office. I watch states violate individuals' rights to marry, and then watch the same people moan about Big Government intrusions. I watch people stuff salt & fat-laden foods into bodies already on the verge of developing diabetes while they complain about health care plans.
We're not better than that. We're exactly that. We like to tell ourselves that we're above the rest, that we're exceptional. It's our great pride that makes us think we've got answers and ideals worth invading and imposing on others - as long as no one tries to impose anything on US... because we're better than that.
But are we?
We're better than that.
I stopped listening to the news at that point, and must have switched over to the ipod. But I kept hearing him say it, over and over. You could hear in his voice that he didn't just think he was right - he knew it - but he also knew that ultimately he would lose whatever battle he was fighting. He would lose because you can't force people to do the right thing. We're Americans, and you can't tell us what to do.
We're better than that.
I remember visiting my grandparents in 2001. Grandpa's health was failing. He suffered from Alzheimer's, joint ailments, and we didn't know it at the time, but he had lung cancer. That was what killed him - even though he had given up cigarettes in the 1950s.
He and grandma were living in an RV on a campsite located on the San Carlos Apache Reservation near Peridot, Arizona. Uncle Russ was having to drive out there once a week (about 50 miles from Phoenix) to get him, take him to his medical appointments at the VA Clinic in Globe, and take him back home. It was summer, and we sat with squirming babies in the tiny motor home, visiting beaming elderly people in 95 degree heat with two little vent fans blowing on the six of us.
I asked them why they didn't let the family put them up in a place in town? We could visit more often, they'd be more comfortable, and we insisted it wouldn't be a financial burden. Grandma recoiled. "Oh, we couldn't live in an apartment in the city!" she said, in a tone that said, "That's just too low class."
We're better than that.
These days, I hear people complaining about our alleged "Big Government." They sneer about the so-called nanny state, insisting that if people were given all the options and left alone, they would chose the best path for themselves. This runs against all evidence to the contrary, of course, as most people tend to make their decisions based on everything but logic and reason.
People buy what they want, whether they can afford it or not, because it appeals to them. They eat what they want because it tastes good, or is cheap - not because it will make them healthy. They rationalize their actions day and night, voting to deny others the right to do what they are sneaking around behind their spouses' backs to do. They drive too fast, playing with phones and drinks and makeup; they are fine to drive because they only had a few.
We're better than that.
I watched people changing lanes without using turn signals, and speeding through the rain, and I thought about that statement. What an assertion of defiant, unreasoning hope. What a ridiculous notion. Both true and false, the unassailable losing argument of the desperate.
I watch people bristle at civility campaigns, and defend the bullies running for office. I watch states violate individuals' rights to marry, and then watch the same people moan about Big Government intrusions. I watch people stuff salt & fat-laden foods into bodies already on the verge of developing diabetes while they complain about health care plans.
We're not better than that. We're exactly that. We like to tell ourselves that we're above the rest, that we're exceptional. It's our great pride that makes us think we've got answers and ideals worth invading and imposing on others - as long as no one tries to impose anything on US... because we're better than that.
But are we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)