Saving the Blog from becoming "Lost"

Ben--thank God you won a donut! Is it too much to hope that it might be a magical spell-checking donut? Zing! Okay, I have no legs to stand on, haven't been around for a few days. But I got your "tag," so here I am. And can I just say...someone else read our blog? Holy crap! We have an audience. Well, had an audience. I can't say I am surprised it was a self-described hippie--this is a demographic I am expecting a lot of support from. (Joyce--if it was in any way advantageous to describe myself as a hippie, I would, but it's kind of frowned upon these days. I guess I'll have to call it "progressive leftist with a wardrobe barely above hippie").

First off, a big fat welcome to Mike. (Well, alright, a big husky welcome--I'm trying to be less of a self critic these days). But seriously, it was great to have another contributor get involved, even someone who wants to take cheap shots at my erudite lexicon. (And, with his use of "erudite lexicon," his fellow bloggers began to suspect that Zach was making overzealous use of a thesaurus when constructing his posts). And I appreciate that you described Isaac Brock as "a dude with a squawky scream and a terrible lisp," because it shows your capability for brutal honesty. You'll need that here.

Anyway, Mike, your extensive pop culture knowledge and musical background will make you an excellent contributor, as I have a hint that things are moving in that direction for next week, when Ben gets to choose topics. It also makes you a nice counterweight, along with Ben, to Kyle and I, whose styles tend to be, perhaps, a bit academic, overly analytical and serious. I mean, I can only speak for myself, but...oh, who am I kidding? Kyle is full of it too. This certainly isn't to say you guys are any less capable of writing the way Kyle or I do--it means you guys have way too much common sense to do it. I mean, I'm complaining that I don't know how to reach people, and then I use words that belong in the mouth of an eighteenth century English lord...it is kind of fishy on my part. Then again, I guess being a nerd is one of the few things I'm going to cling to unabashedly, so...expect more big words. It just makes me all fuzzy inside when I use them.

Now, to get back to serious matters, while we still can, before you guys turn this into a blog about a show I've never watched a full episode of...okay, not just yet. People say I will love "Lost." Can someone explain to me why? I seem to be either extremely on or extremely off in my television choices. For instance: I was all over The West Wing, and people who weren't into it at first came around. I tend to be a snob about my shows and think I have pretty good taste in television. I like all the "good" shows: Arrested Development (I hate you, FOX), It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Sports Nite, Studio 60 (I hate you, NBC), Flight of the Concords, and others that most people seem to agree are in good taste. Then again, I run into people who disapprove of my taste when I explain that I am still watching Heroes, that this season of 24 is really gripping, or try to expound on the simple pleasures of NCIS. Anyway, I really don't want this to turn into a "Lost" blog, but if you could each, in fifty words or less, explain why I should get up off my couch and go rent the first season, I am open to being convinced.

Okay, NOW back to serious matters...you guys made a couple of excellent points that I wanted to throw back up here, beginning with Mike, who said "There are millions of Americans who will aggressively fight to defend the right of their bosses to take advantage of them and their neighbors and families. People with tons of money have used their resources to shape the opinions of poor people to make sure that a giant chunk of the U.S. population will look out for them and protect their every right to do whatever is necessary to make the most money possible. So the poor, in the name of patriotism and freedom, are looking out for the rich." This is just an awesome piece of analysis, and raises an important point: why are the poor protecting the rich? It's quite clear that they are--despite the resentment of the poor towards the rich that I see and hear around me occasionally in the Bronx. And your suggestion that the poor are motivated by ideals, such as "patriotism" and "freedom," is a good start--the poor have been sold those values, literally. (By the way, I was at that rally at City Hall last week...did anyone see it on the news? 75,000 strong, and mostly organized labor, union members, including, of course, my fellow teachers--it was awesome being at what was essentially a union rally...more on that later).

I think there is more to it than mere ideology, though. I'm going to suggest that in fact, the poor are not aware that they are protecting the rich, and that it has something to do with another point you made: "I think this has to do with a uniquely American sense of individualism, which sees 'strength in numbers' as another way of saying 'weakness and lack of industriousness in the self'...This spirit of the individual makes the country more conducive to capitalist competition and less conducive to its citizens getting together to solve problems in innovative ways." I believe this is most certainly the case--people do see individualism as an incorruptible value, as a vital freedom that defines our country. The common (and I would say faulty) logic--which can also be tied, I think, to the massive influx of immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century--is that if one person can make it, any of us can. We all have a "chance" to "make it." While we know, analytically, that this is more complicated--and less than true--it makes for a very nice piece of propaganda, because it is difficult to argue against without sounding like a fascist. (Just for the record, I have been called a fascist before, and also for the record, I would make an awesome benevolent dictator).

Also, the lack of industriousness point--this causes major psychological problems for me. When he was alive, I heard all of my grandfather's stories--his parents came over from Germany in 1904 and he was born here. He worked all his life, worked hard, and didn't stop working until he was dead. I respected the hell out of this at one time, and in some senses, still do--his "work ethic" was incredible. But spending so much time working can only happen at the expense of other things, like family, recreation, and spiritual fulfillment. Sometimes I think about how I wish I had less work--fewer students, really--and I regret how lazy I am, how pathetic my effort and my complaints about my work environment seem when compared with my grandfather's stories. I feel like I am somehow inferior. However, your point makes me feel slightly less crazy during those times, because I know that I'm not lazy--I just believe that humans were put on this earth to do more than work. I think the battle cry of one particular union from late 19th century America sums it up best: "Eight [hours] for work, eight for rest, and eight for what we will." I am not opposed to working hard. I am, however, opposed to being overworked, when I have other elements in my life that are of equal or greater importance to my overall wellbeing than my career. And I am diametrically opposed to people being overworked and underpaid when the sole purpose of their work, in some senses, is to make money for other people.

I think this also relates to Ben's point: "There is a pervasive sense in the Unites States that no matter what happens America is still better then everywhere else." This is most certainly true, in the eyes of most Americans, even among many of the working poor, and especially among immigrants. (This fact often gives me pause when I lament the state of things--but not for long. Yes, this country is great, but it could be so much more, and we shouldn't rest until it is). I think part of what makes it "better" in other peoples' eyes is the freedom of the rugged individualism our country offers to--or perhaps forces on--each of its citizens. What people need to be shown, in a way that is concrete and undeniable, is that individualism is not the holy grail of civic values or civil rights. We confuse "rights" with being an issue for individuals, but we have collective "rights" as well that might be better served by rethinking, or conceding, some of our individual rights. We simply can not expect to be economically strong, politically viable, and socially peaceful as a nation if we are only concerned with the rights of individuals, and we cannot expect to be considered morally principled leaders to the world when we are only concerned with these rights as they relate to our own citizens. We must also be concerned with the rights of people from other countries, of ENTIRE other countries, and of the sustainability of the human race on the planet earth. Of course, ecological sustainability and social justice, while becoming more mainstream issues, tend to remain squarely in the purview of the "elitist" and "leftist" among us.


Ben, I don't want you to feel left out. You also had several great points, but I am rambling now, so I am going to touch on one thing you said: "I think one of the problems we have (especially your generation) is that we've grown used to the idea that things happen instantly. We wonder why the institutions we have seem so impenetrable, but yet do nothing to penetrate them. We've given up getting to the heart of matters." I couldn't agree more. I think this has a lot to do, as you said, with our expectation--nay, our need--for instant gratification. (This may also be a point for the pot conversation, but I'll save that for later). I can speak for myself when I say that I am frustrated--often to the point of despair and apathy--that things seem to "never change," or that change that seems so obviously necessary to me--allowing gay marriage in EVERY state, for instance--takes so damn long to happen.

Here's a thought on why things are this way: labor unions. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during America's Gilded Age, we saw the rise of socialism and labor unions--simultaneous, not synonymous, but not unconnected. Those unions were able to make precious few gains on their demands. Certainly, for most of us in this country, or for those of us who are lucky, our workplace conditions are safer, our workday shorter, and our benefits slightly better than they would have been without the union movement. But it simply isn't enough. We, all of us, need to work less and spend more time with families and on self- and community development. Most of us need to be paid more for our work. We all deserve to have health insurance, sick days, vacation, and more. Why don't we get it?

In short: because the union is dead. Precious few unions still exist. Why? Probably because the government's response to events like the Railroad Strike, Haymarket Riot, Pullman Strike, et al was to violently repress workers' rights to protest. In several cases--and you may have forgotten this, or it may have been selectively omitted by textbook publishers--the employers and/or the federal government (thanks for nothing, Grover Cleveland) actually ordered federal troops in (or sometimes Pinkertons) to end strikes. These interventions always ended in the deaths of several protesters, and also soldiers and policeman. Workers, trying to bargain collectively, have often been replaced by "scabs" and met by the barrel of a gun. That is pretty discouraging for people who want to form unions at their workplaces, or go on strike. So, people learned that collective action often led to nothing, and was quite risky, and they internalized this. They learned, in a hard way, the price of collective action. Individual achievement, however, was rewarded and encouraged. Unions be damned! It's all about "efficiency!" Hire the best and fire the rest and never give another thought to their welfare! (Okay, it's time to stop channeling the robber barons now...in rhyme, for God's sake).

This all leads me to say that while I have neither the time, nor the energy, to take us off fully on this tangent now, expect it to come up in the future: labor unions have the potential to be the saving grace of our society and a vital structure in the reorganization of America if and when capitalism finally goes completely down the toilet. Anarchosyndicalism baby, that's the name of my game. Check it out and get back to me! Tag!