Just to clarify (because my post was brazenly unclear), I have ALWAYS liked being the guy who told people about something first. I was using "Float On" as an example of something that I could have been bitter about, but was not. I turned it to my own selfish ends. My point about the dog video was that it was not something I felt nearly as strongly about. AND I could live with it on AC 360 (for some reason) but watching Wolf Blitzer stutter his way through an introduction to it made my stomach turn.
And to be perfectly honest I saw it on "The Daily Dish" which may be the most popular and recognized blog on the web. So its not like i was flipping through obscure youtube videos and happened upon something that was big.
To be clear the indie rock sensibility of keeping something to yourself has never made any sense to me. Like my station manager who saw Wolf Parade in somebody's loft and then got upset when "Apologies to Queen Mary" got a 9.3 on Pitchfork. It drove her to listen to music that would never be widely popular, just for the sake of its tiny possibility of popularity. It's not that what she liked was bad, just that her motives for liking it seemed impure to me. I mean I saw The Creeping Nobodies and thought they were alright, I even interviewed them. But it wasn't an interview that was going to get any traffic for our radio station, or even a band that I felt compelled to make other people like.
I wasn't upset that everyone liked "Float On". I liked that I got credit for something that happened completely independently of me, and that I had nothing to do with. It is very much the same thing as receiving congratulatory calls when the Red Sox won the world series. When you identify yourself very closely to something it causes the people you know to associate you with it, and to perfectly frank, there is something nice about the idea that people are thinking about you when you're not around (which makes me sound like a self-centered prick but it would be worse if i wasn't self aware, i think). To this end, I will predict that "People got a lot of Nerve" by Neko Case, is going to be very popular.
Also, if you think I don't have a filter wait till you see what Zach and Kyle have to say (yes this is coming from a guy who is giving a coffee by coffee tally of his lack of winning a stupid donut, 0-10 by the way).
Finally, to give credit where credit is due, I might never have gotten in to Modest Mouse if you hadn't received that CMJ sampler with "The Stars are Projectors" on it. In fact many of the bands I got others into i can link back to you Mike, but that is probably less interesting then the matter at hand.
I just wanted to expand on my point from yesterday briefly (ha). I was writing about the failures of the Baby Boomers, and I wanted also to touch on their successes. I wish that I could cite this because I'm pretty sure it wasn't an original thought of my own, but I've googled away and can find no trace of it, so here goes.
The greatest success of the Baby Boomers is that they raised a generation of children who don't care about the same battles that they did. It's not that the Boomers have done much in the last 30 years to change the status quo (they haven't). It is just that the old battles of 60's seem distant to us now. We're ready to take on different challenges. I was talking to my mother about this the other day and the example we discussed was marijuana. Our parent's generation used marijuana as a way of rebelling against their system. It was considered a radical thing to do. Then they grew older and became terrified of how they would teach their children NOT to smoke pot, since they didn't have any moral ground to stand out. The upshot is that there is little stigma from people of our age regarding the use of marijuana because in many ways it is old news. It is not considered all that big of a deal, and tying in with what I wrote yesterday, this is another issue that is going to to fade as the generational shift continues. If the Michael Phelps saga has exposed anything, it is the utter hypocrisy of having pot be illegal when you can buy cigarettes and alcohol as an 18 or 21 year AND there is nothing to stop anyone from buying a six pack of Redbull and downing it in one go. I think these delineations are clearer to us then they were to our parents (and certainly our grandparents).
So as I said I think we can look back on our parents generation as not being a generation that provided profound change, but rather as the generation that laid the groundwork for us to do the heavy lifting. Whether or not we take that fight is an open question, but it won't be our parents fault and it won't be the system's fault. The opportunity is there.
All of which is to say (as mike does) we have to work to accelerate changes that are already happening.
Alright, World Baseball Classic here I come!
P.S. Having read over this I just want to make something clear. When I say "our parents" I don't mean OUR parents. I mean baby boomers but I didn't want to use the term every other sentence.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Rulers of the World
Hi everybody.
This is Mike. I'm here, I believe, to fill in the spaces around the edges of the blog. I don't plan to write any massive screeds, but I'll say what comes to mind. Hey, well, you're welcome!
First, the bits I am actually qualified to talk about: Ben Flash and objects of pop culture.
Ben, you know you're always a-okay in my book. But can you really. REALLY. really promise to suddenly have A BETTER FILTER? Have you changed this much since I've seen you, or is Ben Flash just saying some sayings? Hah? Haaa, I'm messin'!
Hey, you know what's an amazing song? "Float On," by Modest Mouse. In 2003 I somehow found a video of them playing it live on a Canadian TV show that started with a Z. I posted the link on my AOL Instant Messenger profile (For the kids: think of this as Facebook v. 0.0) with the caption: "Modest Mouse plays a U2 riff and changes my stupid life." And then, what happened, well, you told a bunch of your friends, and I told a bunch of my friends, and weirdly enough, everybody really liked this song sung by a dude with a squawky scream and a terrible lisp.
Now, when a person experiences a piece of music or art, I do believe that the music or art is fundamentally changed because of that person's relationship with it. And that seems to be what you're so upset about here, that this great song has been polluted somehow by all these people (well...your friends, anyway...the fact that you were so bummed to hear from your friends with whom you talk music is a conversation for another day) who made this great song into an embarrassing song by liking it. Wait, but really? So when Modest Mouse made 100,000 people really happy (Lonesome Crowded West sold this much) it was all coolzz, but now that Modest Mouse has gotten to 20 times more people, it's bad music? We can't talk anymore about the first time we heard it and how blown away we were? Not to mention: YOU WERE TELLING PEOPLE THIS SONG WAS GOING TO BLOW AND IT DID!! You were right! Why are you feeling so much shame about this band you like, and this song you like, and correctly predicting a pop culture phenomenon?
I think the dog video is the exact same thing. We can feel a little bummed that the secret's out, but we're still just talking about an appropriate number of people getting into a really cool thing. I don't think this is something to feel ashamed over. It's still great.
Know what else was astonishingly great? The 2009 Grammy Awards. Holy god, it was an amazing show. AND it was on network television.
God, it's really easy to write a lot on this blog you have. And I'm not even done.
CZ:
Gramsci's point from your post actually came to me walking through Philadelphia last summer (it was cool, seeing it written out on the Internet with words outside my vocabulary - thx!). 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. And the rich are looking out for...the rich. My first question for someone sticking to a set of nonsensical ideals would be..."who is looking out for you, anyway?"
Meet the person where he is. At this stage in our ridiculous economic situation, this will be easier than at any point thus far in our lifetimes.
My god, look what I just wrote; a massive screed. Count me in, boys!
Michael
This is Mike. I'm here, I believe, to fill in the spaces around the edges of the blog. I don't plan to write any massive screeds, but I'll say what comes to mind. Hey, well, you're welcome!
First, the bits I am actually qualified to talk about: Ben Flash and objects of pop culture.
Ben, you know you're always a-okay in my book. But can you really. REALLY. really promise to suddenly have A BETTER FILTER? Have you changed this much since I've seen you, or is Ben Flash just saying some sayings? Hah? Haaa, I'm messin'!
Hey, you know what's an amazing song? "Float On," by Modest Mouse. In 2003 I somehow found a video of them playing it live on a Canadian TV show that started with a Z. I posted the link on my AOL Instant Messenger profile (For the kids: think of this as Facebook v. 0.0) with the caption: "Modest Mouse plays a U2 riff and changes my stupid life." And then, what happened, well, you told a bunch of your friends, and I told a bunch of my friends, and weirdly enough, everybody really liked this song sung by a dude with a squawky scream and a terrible lisp.
Now, when a person experiences a piece of music or art, I do believe that the music or art is fundamentally changed because of that person's relationship with it. And that seems to be what you're so upset about here, that this great song has been polluted somehow by all these people (well...your friends, anyway...the fact that you were so bummed to hear from your friends with whom you talk music is a conversation for another day) who made this great song into an embarrassing song by liking it. Wait, but really? So when Modest Mouse made 100,000 people really happy (Lonesome Crowded West sold this much) it was all coolzz, but now that Modest Mouse has gotten to 20 times more people, it's bad music? We can't talk anymore about the first time we heard it and how blown away we were? Not to mention: YOU WERE TELLING PEOPLE THIS SONG WAS GOING TO BLOW AND IT DID!! You were right! Why are you feeling so much shame about this band you like, and this song you like, and correctly predicting a pop culture phenomenon?
I think the dog video is the exact same thing. We can feel a little bummed that the secret's out, but we're still just talking about an appropriate number of people getting into a really cool thing. I don't think this is something to feel ashamed over. It's still great.
Know what else was astonishingly great? The 2009 Grammy Awards. Holy god, it was an amazing show. AND it was on network television.
God, it's really easy to write a lot on this blog you have. And I'm not even done.
CZ:
Gramsci's point from your post actually came to me walking through Philadelphia last summer (it was cool, seeing it written out on the Internet with words outside my vocabulary - thx!). 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. And the rich are looking out for...the rich. My first question for someone sticking to a set of nonsensical ideals would be..."who is looking out for you, anyway?"
Meet the person where he is. At this stage in our ridiculous economic situation, this will be easier than at any point thus far in our lifetimes.
My god, look what I just wrote; a massive screed. Count me in, boys!
Michael
Fighting the System Inch By Inch and Moment By Moment
Let me get the less interesting business out of the way. I'm going to be out of town this weekend so I may only be able to blurb, rather then blog. Secondly, i think that this discussion deserves more then giving up on it this weekend after we've each responded once, so I propose we push my conversation starter to the following week and try to get this conversation going, because when it is my turn I'm going to take this in a radically different direction.
On to your points which are (as usual) very well taken. I'm not going to respond to the bulk of the post because I think you're pretty on the money and I can't really quibble with any of it. If I have a small objection it's just in my generally more positive outlook on life. Which means I do think we can come up with ways to ask these questions.
Or, rather I think I mean question. I often find that the best way to get someone to wrap their head around a specific problem that they are having, is to just make them answer the question "Why?".
So I think it's possible to rope someone into a discussion of education, or the media or politics generally, and then force them to look at their ingrained biases. I think one of the problems we have (especially our 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.
It is interesting that you chose those speeches because that represents the era our parents grew up in. I feel like these institutions became ingrained because the boomers had all this hope and just ASSUMED they would be the ones to change the world. But instead became integrated in to the system just the same and had already accepted their generations reputation. The fact that you pointed to those two speeches from both a Democrat and a Republican that happened only half a century ago means that these ideas are did exist in the establishment you so despise. We just need to bring that back to foreground.
What I would preach is patience. Patience with the generational shift in this country. The issues of the day are not going to be our issues in 15 or 20 years. While we live in the age of instant gratification, we also are saavier then our parents. So I would focus on asking the question "why" about ingrained ideas, and imparting the ability to question in those younger then us.
I guess what I'm saying is don't worry to much about convincing those older than you. Worry about using the system that exists and then work it once you get in. Conventional wisdom IS changing its just happening slowly. But i'm willing to guarantee you that 30 years from now we're not having an argument about gay marriage, for example.
To use on final example: this presidential cycle really changed common thinking about who is capable of being elected president. Even compared to three years ago there are many fewer barriers to being elected. YES, the biggest barrier is still money. But rich people are not inherently bad. There are good rich people. I think its more important for us to reward SMART people and, in our system smart people often get rich.
Anyway we've been over and over and over this, but the point is here is a very recent example of common perceptions changing. I feel like we may actually be inching towards a "more perfect union". So don't give up hope just yet.
(P.S 0 for 9)
On to your points which are (as usual) very well taken. I'm not going to respond to the bulk of the post because I think you're pretty on the money and I can't really quibble with any of it. If I have a small objection it's just in my generally more positive outlook on life. Which means I do think we can come up with ways to ask these questions.
Or, rather I think I mean question. I often find that the best way to get someone to wrap their head around a specific problem that they are having, is to just make them answer the question "Why?".
So I think it's possible to rope someone into a discussion of education, or the media or politics generally, and then force them to look at their ingrained biases. I think one of the problems we have (especially our 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.
It is interesting that you chose those speeches because that represents the era our parents grew up in. I feel like these institutions became ingrained because the boomers had all this hope and just ASSUMED they would be the ones to change the world. But instead became integrated in to the system just the same and had already accepted their generations reputation. The fact that you pointed to those two speeches from both a Democrat and a Republican that happened only half a century ago means that these ideas are did exist in the establishment you so despise. We just need to bring that back to foreground.
What I would preach is patience. Patience with the generational shift in this country. The issues of the day are not going to be our issues in 15 or 20 years. While we live in the age of instant gratification, we also are saavier then our parents. So I would focus on asking the question "why" about ingrained ideas, and imparting the ability to question in those younger then us.
I guess what I'm saying is don't worry to much about convincing those older than you. Worry about using the system that exists and then work it once you get in. Conventional wisdom IS changing its just happening slowly. But i'm willing to guarantee you that 30 years from now we're not having an argument about gay marriage, for example.
To use on final example: this presidential cycle really changed common thinking about who is capable of being elected president. Even compared to three years ago there are many fewer barriers to being elected. YES, the biggest barrier is still money. But rich people are not inherently bad. There are good rich people. I think its more important for us to reward SMART people and, in our system smart people often get rich.
Anyway we've been over and over and over this, but the point is here is a very recent example of common perceptions changing. I feel like we may actually be inching towards a "more perfect union". So don't give up hope just yet.
(P.S 0 for 9)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Speaking Out Against the Status Quo
First of all, Ben, well done on that sleepwalking dog video. You've managed to sift through the mostly worthless sludge of youtube and found yourself a regular nugget of gold. Congratulations. I hear gold is the only thing that's still worth anything these days. Needless to say, you are probably sitting at your desk by candlelight, stacking up gold Krugerrands like some kind of apartheid-loving Scrooge McDuck.
Well, there's a joke that worked out better in my head. Anyway, the point was that I see now how disastrous it is for me to abandon the blog. [Unwarranted cheap shot warning]. Kyle starts writing like he knows about politics and Ben manages to turn things miraculously around to himself. (I know, I know...and Zach manages to not be heard from. For a week. I get it).
Before I forget, while Ben was busy watching the Jonas Brothers video blog on youtube (I just started a demand for something that doesn't exist), I was busy ignoring my magazines. But today I picked up this week's copy of The Nation, and as usual, I wasn't disappointed. Check out Barney Frank's frankly-titled (couldn't help myself) letter in The Nation this week, "Cut the Military Budget," which is about, well...I don't want to spoil the surprise. But he lays out an excellent case that I think all Americans--especially those who call themselves fiscal conservatives--ought to at least give consideration to. Of course, it's hard to get people to seriously consider an idea that they have been so thoroughly conditioned to resist: a reduction of the military-industrial complex. (I know, some of you are going to say, "Let's face it--our very lives are at stake here!" To which I say: poor fool, do you not see that it is the so-called security that catalyzes the threats against us? But then this turns into a whole debate about whether national security is about the proverbial bottom line of results versus the honorable way of doing things and honoring our ideals and principles in our practice, and I think Jack Bauer has pretty much answered that question [to your satisfaction] already).
Anyway...how I despise myself for using that as a transition...ANYWAY, we've delved--well, Ben and Kyle delved as I took a mental vacation--into the philosophical underpinnings of the two-party system. For those of you who missed last week or are just joining us (I love that I write as if a fourth, much less fifth person were reading this blog), I think we can all agree to the short version: the two parties suck, the two-party system sucks, and we really need to get out and vote. (Or maybe I made up the part about getting out to vote...did you guys touch on that? My use of the parentheses is extensive so far. Not a good sign. Sentence fragments apparently good, however. You. Vote.)
But voting, even if we all voted, can only change so much. The question that ultimately interests me, at the end of most days, is why do things continue to persist the way that they are? It is much more complicated than the number of people who choose to vote or not vote. Why do we continue to live in such conditions, with such hypocrisy in power, with so little input or control over the way our resources, our principles, and our name--America--are used abroad? Why do most of us do little more than sit home and grumble about the state of things when in Iceland, the government was ousted by people banging on drums, and when in Russia--Vladimir Putin's repressive Russia--thousands took to the streets to protest the government's handling of the crisis? There were one or two small demonstrations here, but Americans on the whole, as usual, seemed happy to say nothing and stay at home. Are we simply more patient than Europeans? Are we so tired from working too hard for too little just to stay afloat that we simply don't have the energy for civic engagement? Or is it that we believe that the market truly is self-perpetuating, moving ever forward, impossible to stop? Or do we believe in the magic of Obama?
(Note to Paul Shanklin, Rush Limbaugh, and Chip Saltsman: I'm calling him potentially magic as an economist, not as an African-American. Oh, and by the way, this is why Wikipedia is great: they have a whole page devoted to the "Barack the Magic Negro" scandal. Including this tidbit: 'On December 31, 2008, during their New Year's Eve broadcast, the Fox News Channel allowed the viewer submitted text message "Happy New Year and let's hope the Magic Negro does a good job" to be displayed in the news ticker on the bottom of the screen. Fox News later apologized for allowing the message to be aired.' Classic. All I can say is: clearly, that text message came from Rupert Murdoch. Thank you, Wikipedia. I may be coming around on you yet).
But to get back to the question: why does the status quo of social inequality persist? I tend to think the answer--as I usually do--is somewhat more complicated than it may appear.
I really wanted to quote an extensive selection from a textbook of mine, called School and Society by Tozer, Senese, and Viloas. However, while I am quite sure this blog is reaching an excruciatingly small group of people, I feel certain that some type of mindless computer is humming away day and night, waiting to catch my not-for-profit unauthorized reproduction of overpriced academic texts, so I can be sought out and ruined financially while being raked across the coals of intellectual property. I am torn, because my desire to pass on this wonderful knowledge to others is intertwined with my belief that it ought to be free, and I ought to be free to do so, with all due respect and notwithstanding the authors' need to be compensated for their excellent work. Ultimately, the threat of punishment--the aforementioned coals--will keep me in my place, and the book's text within its cover. Kudos, though, to McGraw Hill for publishing such a subversive and Marxist textbook. It gives me the tiniest shred of faith in textbook publishers. Just the tiniest, though.
(Note to the authors--I say the book is overpriced because I know that many people besides you are profiting much more from the sale of your book. I would have gladly paid you a much higher sum for this knowledge in lecture form and given my money to a university than handed it over to a publisher or a college bookstore, albeit that universities are inherently for-profit institutions as well. But that's another week's discussion).
Let me simply say, moving on, that the book's authors introduced me to Antonio Gramsci, who according to the authors is an important ideological hegemony theorist. To quote the Wikipedia page about Gramsci: "Capitalism, Gramsci suggested, maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also ideologically, through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the 'common sense' values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and helped to maintain the status quo rather than revolting...He claimed that modern intellectuals were not simply talkers, but directors and organisers who helped build society and produce hegemony by means of ideological apparatuses such as education and the media."
I find this position difficult to disagree with. The analysis rings quite true to me: students in all schools, regardless of the school's perceived "performance" based on the narrowly constructed and defined reality of contemporary educational standards, are socialized and "educated" for the better part of their most formative years by the school which is essentially a conservative (as in conserving) institution. People graduate, if they are lucky, from this school system into a world where the media continues to play to the level of intellectual expectation and the bounds of debate set by the educational system. Corporate ownership provides the necessary agenda for deciding what is and what isn't part of the news cycle, and since everything within that is consistent with what we have already been taught is "acceptable" and "democratic" the cycle continues unchallenged.
Both media and schools play by the same rules, offering a white-washed version of events, whether recent or historical, and both focusing, in even their most critical moments, on nothing more harmless than the undesirable outcomes of particular aspects of government programs or policy. Both institutions--the "public" schools and the "free" press--continually fail to develop a truly subversive, intellectually honest critique of the fundamental structures of our society: free-market capitalism; representative "democracy"; the police state; American imperialism; the military-industrial complex; the ever-more-consolidated media; the conflicts that our "intelligence" community has waged almost unnoticed by Americans for decades.
But then, why should I expect differently from media? Why would they offer a critique that would challenge their own worth and undermine their own profitability? And why would schools teach alternative societal structures or an honest examination of our own? We know whose interests they serve.
Something keeps us in our place. Is it fear? Is it ignorance? Is it the constant propaganda of the media? It likely has to do with all of these factors, and more. My real question is, how do we reach out to people? How do we offer people an alternative politics? How do we begin to explain an analysis that, when summarized, is mindlessly marginalized by the opposition as something out of the X-Files? How do you productively suggest that Marxism or socialism are not dirty words to be swept under the rug? How do we show people those things have been made so subtle?
How do we convince people that the self-appointed greatest country in the world, for all its greatness, has many flaws, and that as its people we must hold it to its own highest standard--nay, to its own written standard? Most days, it seems we fall short of those words penned by Thomas Jefferson, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, though they remain synonymous with our country's very name whether we honor them or not. How do we show people these shortcomings and educate them when even great men like Eisenhower and Kennedy, who held the highest office in the land, and were strong logicians and orators, could not? (See the links below for selections from often-overlooked speeches by Eisenhower and Kennedy--why didn't these make it into my history textbook? Hmm...)
Eisenhower's Farewell Address (Military-industrial complex)
Kennedy's "Secret Societies" speech
So, my question to the group is: as participants in society, as people who think and write and blog about our ideas, and as people who have families and friends, many of whom may not share what could be considered a radical and subversive analysis of American power, how do we present this alternative viewpoint in a way that is actually constructive? How do I sit down at the dinner table, or at my local bar, or in line at the supermarket, or on the subway, and begin a conversation about the incestuous institutional relationships between corporations, corporate-owned media, and government? How do I begin to suggest that, just possibly, this country isn't perfect, and that I'm not a terrorist for saying so?
Literally: I want us to brainstorm ways to begin having this conversation with people. Besides, you know, the whole awkward "So, have you thought much lately about how we are all complicit in the slow and deliberate death of other people and the planet and a variety of other actions contradicting our stated values?"
I want advice. We hope to welcome to the fold this week (as they see fit) Mike Mahoney, Rachel Beatty and Garrett Bunyak. I look forward to hearing from and responding to everybody.
Well, there's a joke that worked out better in my head. Anyway, the point was that I see now how disastrous it is for me to abandon the blog. [Unwarranted cheap shot warning]. Kyle starts writing like he knows about politics and Ben manages to turn things miraculously around to himself. (I know, I know...and Zach manages to not be heard from. For a week. I get it).
Before I forget, while Ben was busy watching the Jonas Brothers video blog on youtube (I just started a demand for something that doesn't exist), I was busy ignoring my magazines. But today I picked up this week's copy of The Nation, and as usual, I wasn't disappointed. Check out Barney Frank's frankly-titled (couldn't help myself) letter in The Nation this week, "Cut the Military Budget," which is about, well...I don't want to spoil the surprise. But he lays out an excellent case that I think all Americans--especially those who call themselves fiscal conservatives--ought to at least give consideration to. Of course, it's hard to get people to seriously consider an idea that they have been so thoroughly conditioned to resist: a reduction of the military-industrial complex. (I know, some of you are going to say, "Let's face it--our very lives are at stake here!" To which I say: poor fool, do you not see that it is the so-called security that catalyzes the threats against us? But then this turns into a whole debate about whether national security is about the proverbial bottom line of results versus the honorable way of doing things and honoring our ideals and principles in our practice, and I think Jack Bauer has pretty much answered that question [to your satisfaction] already).
Anyway...how I despise myself for using that as a transition...ANYWAY, we've delved--well, Ben and Kyle delved as I took a mental vacation--into the philosophical underpinnings of the two-party system. For those of you who missed last week or are just joining us (I love that I write as if a fourth, much less fifth person were reading this blog), I think we can all agree to the short version: the two parties suck, the two-party system sucks, and we really need to get out and vote. (Or maybe I made up the part about getting out to vote...did you guys touch on that? My use of the parentheses is extensive so far. Not a good sign. Sentence fragments apparently good, however. You. Vote.)
But voting, even if we all voted, can only change so much. The question that ultimately interests me, at the end of most days, is why do things continue to persist the way that they are? It is much more complicated than the number of people who choose to vote or not vote. Why do we continue to live in such conditions, with such hypocrisy in power, with so little input or control over the way our resources, our principles, and our name--America--are used abroad? Why do most of us do little more than sit home and grumble about the state of things when in Iceland, the government was ousted by people banging on drums, and when in Russia--Vladimir Putin's repressive Russia--thousands took to the streets to protest the government's handling of the crisis? There were one or two small demonstrations here, but Americans on the whole, as usual, seemed happy to say nothing and stay at home. Are we simply more patient than Europeans? Are we so tired from working too hard for too little just to stay afloat that we simply don't have the energy for civic engagement? Or is it that we believe that the market truly is self-perpetuating, moving ever forward, impossible to stop? Or do we believe in the magic of Obama?
(Note to Paul Shanklin, Rush Limbaugh, and Chip Saltsman: I'm calling him potentially magic as an economist, not as an African-American. Oh, and by the way, this is why Wikipedia is great: they have a whole page devoted to the "Barack the Magic Negro" scandal. Including this tidbit: 'On December 31, 2008, during their New Year's Eve broadcast, the Fox News Channel allowed the viewer submitted text message "Happy New Year and let's hope the Magic Negro does a good job" to be displayed in the news ticker on the bottom of the screen. Fox News later apologized for allowing the message to be aired.' Classic. All I can say is: clearly, that text message came from Rupert Murdoch. Thank you, Wikipedia. I may be coming around on you yet).
But to get back to the question: why does the status quo of social inequality persist? I tend to think the answer--as I usually do--is somewhat more complicated than it may appear.
I really wanted to quote an extensive selection from a textbook of mine, called School and Society by Tozer, Senese, and Viloas. However, while I am quite sure this blog is reaching an excruciatingly small group of people, I feel certain that some type of mindless computer is humming away day and night, waiting to catch my not-for-profit unauthorized reproduction of overpriced academic texts, so I can be sought out and ruined financially while being raked across the coals of intellectual property. I am torn, because my desire to pass on this wonderful knowledge to others is intertwined with my belief that it ought to be free, and I ought to be free to do so, with all due respect and notwithstanding the authors' need to be compensated for their excellent work. Ultimately, the threat of punishment--the aforementioned coals--will keep me in my place, and the book's text within its cover. Kudos, though, to McGraw Hill for publishing such a subversive and Marxist textbook. It gives me the tiniest shred of faith in textbook publishers. Just the tiniest, though.
(Note to the authors--I say the book is overpriced because I know that many people besides you are profiting much more from the sale of your book. I would have gladly paid you a much higher sum for this knowledge in lecture form and given my money to a university than handed it over to a publisher or a college bookstore, albeit that universities are inherently for-profit institutions as well. But that's another week's discussion).
Let me simply say, moving on, that the book's authors introduced me to Antonio Gramsci, who according to the authors is an important ideological hegemony theorist. To quote the Wikipedia page about Gramsci: "Capitalism, Gramsci suggested, maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also ideologically, through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the 'common sense' values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and helped to maintain the status quo rather than revolting...He claimed that modern intellectuals were not simply talkers, but directors and organisers who helped build society and produce hegemony by means of ideological apparatuses such as education and the media."
I find this position difficult to disagree with. The analysis rings quite true to me: students in all schools, regardless of the school's perceived "performance" based on the narrowly constructed and defined reality of contemporary educational standards, are socialized and "educated" for the better part of their most formative years by the school which is essentially a conservative (as in conserving) institution. People graduate, if they are lucky, from this school system into a world where the media continues to play to the level of intellectual expectation and the bounds of debate set by the educational system. Corporate ownership provides the necessary agenda for deciding what is and what isn't part of the news cycle, and since everything within that is consistent with what we have already been taught is "acceptable" and "democratic" the cycle continues unchallenged.
Both media and schools play by the same rules, offering a white-washed version of events, whether recent or historical, and both focusing, in even their most critical moments, on nothing more harmless than the undesirable outcomes of particular aspects of government programs or policy. Both institutions--the "public" schools and the "free" press--continually fail to develop a truly subversive, intellectually honest critique of the fundamental structures of our society: free-market capitalism; representative "democracy"; the police state; American imperialism; the military-industrial complex; the ever-more-consolidated media; the conflicts that our "intelligence" community has waged almost unnoticed by Americans for decades.
But then, why should I expect differently from media? Why would they offer a critique that would challenge their own worth and undermine their own profitability? And why would schools teach alternative societal structures or an honest examination of our own? We know whose interests they serve.
Something keeps us in our place. Is it fear? Is it ignorance? Is it the constant propaganda of the media? It likely has to do with all of these factors, and more. My real question is, how do we reach out to people? How do we offer people an alternative politics? How do we begin to explain an analysis that, when summarized, is mindlessly marginalized by the opposition as something out of the X-Files? How do you productively suggest that Marxism or socialism are not dirty words to be swept under the rug? How do we show people those things have been made so subtle?
How do we convince people that the self-appointed greatest country in the world, for all its greatness, has many flaws, and that as its people we must hold it to its own highest standard--nay, to its own written standard? Most days, it seems we fall short of those words penned by Thomas Jefferson, about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, though they remain synonymous with our country's very name whether we honor them or not. How do we show people these shortcomings and educate them when even great men like Eisenhower and Kennedy, who held the highest office in the land, and were strong logicians and orators, could not? (See the links below for selections from often-overlooked speeches by Eisenhower and Kennedy--why didn't these make it into my history textbook? Hmm...)
Eisenhower's Farewell Address (Military-industrial complex)
Kennedy's "Secret Societies" speech
So, my question to the group is: as participants in society, as people who think and write and blog about our ideas, and as people who have families and friends, many of whom may not share what could be considered a radical and subversive analysis of American power, how do we present this alternative viewpoint in a way that is actually constructive? How do I sit down at the dinner table, or at my local bar, or in line at the supermarket, or on the subway, and begin a conversation about the incestuous institutional relationships between corporations, corporate-owned media, and government? How do I begin to suggest that, just possibly, this country isn't perfect, and that I'm not a terrorist for saying so?
Literally: I want us to brainstorm ways to begin having this conversation with people. Besides, you know, the whole awkward "So, have you thought much lately about how we are all complicit in the slow and deliberate death of other people and the planet and a variety of other actions contradicting our stated values?"
I want advice. We hope to welcome to the fold this week (as they see fit) Mike Mahoney, Rachel Beatty and Garrett Bunyak. I look forward to hearing from and responding to everybody.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A Retraction
OK, I'm a little embarrassed. I've now seen the video that I posted yesterday on CNN twice. I feel like a cultural lemming. The first time was on AC 360, which I could live with because, as I've stated before on this blog, I think Anderson Cooper is alright (as far as mainstream media anchors go). But then today I happened to see it on The Situation Room. Ugh... Wolf Blitzer represents every brutal anchor, mainstream media stereotype in existence. It was infuriating. Kyle, you have my copy of Klosterman's Killing Yourself to Live. If you could track down his Wolf Blitzer jab from the passage on the blackout I would appreciate it.
I should have known. I pride myself on identifying pop culture phenomena in advance of when they hit the mainstream and I beat myself up when I miss one.
FOR INSTANCE: I went out of my way to tell everyone I knew that Modest Mouse's "Float On" was going to be a huge song. This went against some of my indie-snob instincts because we tend to hold on to smaller bands who arn't that popular. But I knew that while I was home for the summer every time that song came on the people I had mentioned the song to would think "man, I wonder what Ben is up to right now" and that was borne out by the number of drunken phone calls I recieved with people saying "BEN! Float On is on in this bar! and I was just thinking about what you were up to! WHOO!OO!"
OK, so I'm a self-centered self-serving douche, but the point holds.
The counter point to this, is that i watched the first episode of "Lost" and thought "how the hell are they going to drag this out for a whole series". Man, was I wrong. The show is awesome and well executed and (obviously) a huge pop culture phenomena.
But there is a distinction here between identifying pop culture phenomena and being caught up with everyone else. In this instance I was had. I think I would feel better about it if I could really get behind something as stupid as this youtube video. But I can't. It made me laugh and something compelled me to post it on this blog. I regret this. Consider this post my official retraction. I'm not going to delete the previous post because I believe in exposing my failures to the rest of mankind. But I do promise to have a better filter. I will attempt to bring more insight and less internet nonsense. Or at least not internet nonsense you will have seen on CNgoddamN.
This isn't my week for conversation starters, but I felt the need to defend and apologize for my previous post.
I should have known. I pride myself on identifying pop culture phenomena in advance of when they hit the mainstream and I beat myself up when I miss one.
FOR INSTANCE: I went out of my way to tell everyone I knew that Modest Mouse's "Float On" was going to be a huge song. This went against some of my indie-snob instincts because we tend to hold on to smaller bands who arn't that popular. But I knew that while I was home for the summer every time that song came on the people I had mentioned the song to would think "man, I wonder what Ben is up to right now" and that was borne out by the number of drunken phone calls I recieved with people saying "BEN! Float On is on in this bar! and I was just thinking about what you were up to! WHOO!OO!"
OK, so I'm a self-centered self-serving douche, but the point holds.
The counter point to this, is that i watched the first episode of "Lost" and thought "how the hell are they going to drag this out for a whole series". Man, was I wrong. The show is awesome and well executed and (obviously) a huge pop culture phenomena.
But there is a distinction here between identifying pop culture phenomena and being caught up with everyone else. In this instance I was had. I think I would feel better about it if I could really get behind something as stupid as this youtube video. But I can't. It made me laugh and something compelled me to post it on this blog. I regret this. Consider this post my official retraction. I'm not going to delete the previous post because I believe in exposing my failures to the rest of mankind. But I do promise to have a better filter. I will attempt to bring more insight and less internet nonsense. Or at least not internet nonsense you will have seen on CNgoddamN.
This isn't my week for conversation starters, but I felt the need to defend and apologize for my previous post.
Monday, March 2, 2009
and for Z
if this doesn't brighten your day I'm not sure what will:
Actually, I take that back I can think of a bunch of things that would brighten your day more then this but i still thought it was funny, so FUCK YOU. I can hear your irritated sigh through the series of tubes that connects this blog to you.
So what if this blog is for useful conversation and not cheesy pet youtube videos. I'm killing time and this one was funny. If you have a problem then lets use this a launching pad to discuss my lameness.
If this blog is a conversation, then consider this post (and the one before it) the equivalent of me saying "like" like 100 times in a sentence to buy time, or to cover the fact that my sentence has no point.
Actually, I take that back I can think of a bunch of things that would brighten your day more then this but i still thought it was funny, so FUCK YOU. I can hear your irritated sigh through the series of tubes that connects this blog to you.
So what if this blog is for useful conversation and not cheesy pet youtube videos. I'm killing time and this one was funny. If you have a problem then lets use this a launching pad to discuss my lameness.
If this blog is a conversation, then consider this post (and the one before it) the equivalent of me saying "like" like 100 times in a sentence to buy time, or to cover the fact that my sentence has no point.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)