Back from the beach where I played two v-ball tournaments in two days...and I won one of them.
But getting old is hell.
Playing music in Lancaster on Friday...let me know if you can stop out.
Then another tournament on Sat.
I'm kinda crazy.
Ha!
I've missed you all!
But getting old is hell.
Playing music in Lancaster on Friday...let me know if you can stop out.
Then another tournament on Sat.
I'm kinda crazy.
Ha!
I've missed you all!
I remain thoroughly amazed that anyone thinks The Hunger Games (book, not movie--haven't seen the movie) is anywhere better than average...
A juvenile romance, wherein the author (constantly) changes the rules so as to manage a happy ending...and where there's adolescent angst, not about children killing children, but about possibly having to kill the one kid who, through a plot device similar to a secret note in the halls of middle school, might actually "like" you. No horror, no suspense, and completely predictable.
Add to that the book's apparent (Baudrillardian) message: "pretend to agree with the monopoly even if you don't, and it may change the rules for you that one day it may allow you to be who you are, even if who you are is revolutionary. Reality TV can change the world." Which is, to me, a patently stupid, morally bankrupt, but remarkably comforting message to our culture.
Don't get me wrong: I didn't find it AWFUL. Just fairly average young adult fare. I don't get the hoopla.
What Potter did to fantasy and Twilight did to vampire horror, THG does to post-apocalyptic fiction.
(I suppose I should put on my flame retardant suit now. Anyway, just MY opinion. Nothing more.)
A juvenile romance, wherein the author (constantly) changes the rules so as to manage a happy ending...and where there's adolescent angst, not about children killing children, but about possibly having to kill the one kid who, through a plot device similar to a secret note in the halls of middle school, might actually "like" you. No horror, no suspense, and completely predictable.
Add to that the book's apparent (Baudrillardian) message: "pretend to agree with the monopoly even if you don't, and it may change the rules for you that one day it may allow you to be who you are, even if who you are is revolutionary. Reality TV can change the world." Which is, to me, a patently stupid, morally bankrupt, but remarkably comforting message to our culture.
Don't get me wrong: I didn't find it AWFUL. Just fairly average young adult fare. I don't get the hoopla.
What Potter did to fantasy and Twilight did to vampire horror, THG does to post-apocalyptic fiction.
(I suppose I should put on my flame retardant suit now. Anyway, just MY opinion. Nothing more.)
Gig tonight and next Sat! Tonight (Th, 2/9) at Reverb in Reading, PA. Come out if you're nearby!
3 acts: Us (Cloud Party), Ara, Dan Ascanio...starting at 8. Acoustic set. We play at 9:15. Come out and I'll buy you a drink!
And next Sat, 2/18 at the Blind Pig Pub in Eagles Mere PA...cool little place in a sleepy little town. I hope I see you there! 7:30--acoustic duo.
We're playing a few acoustic sets while we finish mixing the new album...which actually may be done soon! Looking forward to a CD release party. It's been too long!
I've forgotten how much I love mixing stuff we've sweated over...it's a pleasure.
Anyway. Come out! Say hi! I'll buy you a drink or three if you're from SG!
3 acts: Us (Cloud Party), Ara, Dan Ascanio...starting at 8. Acoustic set. We play at 9:15. Come out and I'll buy you a drink!
And next Sat, 2/18 at the Blind Pig Pub in Eagles Mere PA...cool little place in a sleepy little town. I hope I see you there! 7:30--acoustic duo.
We're playing a few acoustic sets while we finish mixing the new album...which actually may be done soon! Looking forward to a CD release party. It's been too long!
I've forgotten how much I love mixing stuff we've sweated over...it's a pleasure.
Anyway. Come out! Say hi! I'll buy you a drink or three if you're from SG!
I'm baaaaack.
On the grid, I mean. For the record. And class has started again. I'm teaching Apocalyptic Literature. So much fun....
On the grid, I mean. For the record. And class has started again. I'm teaching Apocalyptic Literature. So much fun....
It's that time of the year. The holiday season is fun, but sort of a pain in the ass. I will be spending less time here....and in other pursuits. But I'll be around.
Hope everyone is great!
Hope everyone is great!
Off to Rusty's Hard Time Hollow for the weekend. No running water. Campfires. Whiskey. A good time....
OK, so. Here are my personal thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street Movement, for what they are worth.
Some people seem to be asking what this protest is all about, and suggesting that it's about so many varied issues that there is no singular message. Or, that it's just a selfish movement of people who are unemployed and/or want handouts. Of course, there is the overarching message of being "anti-corporation" and "big banks"--the people who were bailed out by the American taxpayer and yet still put greed before community.
I was listening to NPR the other day, and there were two CEOs (one of Campbell's Soup and one of Frontier Communications) and both seemed remarkably out of touch (in my opinion, though the CEO of Campbell's seemed far more so.) When asked about guaranteeing to hire back people who'd been laid off or to put a moratorium on lay-offs, the response was rambling. Basically, everything depends on "growth." Fair enough, I suppose. But.
Here's why I support the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and I speak only for ME here.:
I'm an environmentalist in sort of the old-school Edward Abbey way (in fact, I'm sure I'll quote Abbey in this note.) I've always seen the problem of the environment in different ways than many other environmentalists. For instance, I see pollution not as a problem, but as a symptom of a problem.
I recently read James Speth's book The Bridge at the End of the World. While his conclusion was way too optimistic for a cynic like me, he does note that, if we continue to recycle, to maintain environmental regulations, to continue to slowly wean ourselves off of oil (for instances) we will eventually accomplish essentially nothing. The world we live in will continue to degrade and we will lose more and more wild places. Why? 2 reasons. One is population growth. But the other is consumer-based corporate capitalism, a system which continues to put profits ahead of any other motive and which is conflated with democracy and which fetishizes growth.
What does all that mean? (The following is MY view, not necessarily Speth's). Well, there were two competing forces in the Cold War: Democracy (and capitalism) and Communistic Fascism (and socialism). Obviously, the former won. However, Democracy is not the same thing as capitalism...but the "victory" was viewed largely as a victory for capitalism. (Are the two related? Certainly, but not necessarily. Also, they are not mutually exclusive--I'm not calling for an end to capitalism.) In fact, it was a victory for Democracy--for freedom. But freedom does not mean freedom to choose between advertised brands. (This is not freedom of choice; rather it's selection.) Freedom means much more than that--freedom means the ability to have agency, to make one's own life, to live as one wishes. Every fence in the world is an attack on freedom...and we have more fences than ever.
So, capitalism became, in the view of many, a "good" force in the world, one that promulgated freedom, and this is simply a misreading of history (or, perhaps, a misreading of the balances between the two.)
Along those same lines, because America has always seen economic growth (for centuries due to slave labor and the frontier) we have a fetish for growth. Any economic growth below 3% is considered "bad." Why? Why do we always need to grow? When I hear a news story that expresses disappointment that "new home sales are down" I wonder why that's a bad thing? Why isn't it good that more people are buying older homes or living within their means or not destroying more land for more and more homes (and homes--even small ones--are much larger in America than they were in the 1950s (for instance?) Indeed, we consume more now--perhaps 3 times as much--than we used to, In part, this is due to convenience. But it's also due to greed. We do and have so many things we don't "need." (I do recognize that "need" is in the eye of the beholder.)) Somewhere the "American Dream" became less about an ideal about freedom and more about economic status.
So, we're told change can't happen to help the environment or to maintain wild places (necessary, in my view, for freedom) unless we can make those changes and wild places palatable (or even profitable) for corporations. And I'm calling bullshit.
It's time we recognized that unbridled growth is just another word for greed and it comes at a cost, a cost that is unmeasurable in dollars. It's time to slow down a bit and take stock. The more we fetishize growth an an attempt to ameliorate the voice of the people with more shiny stuff, the more the 99% (which the protest refers to) will accept the greed of the 1%. A rising tide lifts all boats, perhaps, but lifts them where?
In some ways, my argument here is different from many of those protesting. I think we all need to change how we live. Some people might call this "sacrifice," but really, we're only sacrificing stuff and convenience. Money. We can all (obviously, except for those in true poverty) live with less. But without the 1% taking responsibility for their position and their ability to lessen that "sacrifice" for everyone, change seems unlikely. We spend so much in opportunity cost. We waste so much money convincing people to buy buy buy. Both the convincers and the people need to change.
I think I'm getting tangential, but this is essentially what I see in this movement. Do i think it has a chance? As you read above, I'm a cynic. I see little hope.
But I will say this: As people respond and protest and get involved, the chances of those people to live authentic lives in which they become subjects with real choices rather than simply consumers with selections grows. The more this happens, the better off we all are. And if it happens to enough people, society will change simply because of it. Things may become less important; people may chat with their neighbors rather than build more fences. People may choose smaller homes with comforts rather than larger houses with status. Maybe i'm being a bit optimistic, but without hope, what hope would there be? As Abbey wrote, "The best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy." More people involved.
Speth argues that we need to change capitalism. I think that's nobel, but unlikely. (He argues, for instance, that corporate charters should routinely be revoked if the corporation does not, overall, work for the common good. I think for such a possibility to happen, we need to change ourselves and our society first.)
And yes, I recognize that I, like everyone else involved in this movement or any movement, am being hypocritical at times. I mean, I have a TV. I have an ipod. Etc, etc. But consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. And the difference I make when tithing 10% of my income pales compared to when a very rich man or corporation does so. (This fact goes back to Abbey--the guy throwing the beer can out of the car window is not the problem. The problem stems from the system, not the individual peon within it.)
And finally, I'll end with another quote from Abbey (taken, as the other quote was, from his essay "Freedom and Wilderness..."): "There comes a point in human affairs when the ideal must become the real--or nothing. It is my contention that if we wish to save what is good in our lives and give our children a taste of the good life, we must bring a halt to the ever-expanding economy and put the growth maniacs under medical care."
And to do so, it seems to me, we need to change our definition of what "the good life" is. "The good life" or the "American Dream," it seems to me, needs to be something greater than an economic question.
Now back to my dissertation, from which this tangent sprung. Thanks for reading.
Some people seem to be asking what this protest is all about, and suggesting that it's about so many varied issues that there is no singular message. Or, that it's just a selfish movement of people who are unemployed and/or want handouts. Of course, there is the overarching message of being "anti-corporation" and "big banks"--the people who were bailed out by the American taxpayer and yet still put greed before community.
I was listening to NPR the other day, and there were two CEOs (one of Campbell's Soup and one of Frontier Communications) and both seemed remarkably out of touch (in my opinion, though the CEO of Campbell's seemed far more so.) When asked about guaranteeing to hire back people who'd been laid off or to put a moratorium on lay-offs, the response was rambling. Basically, everything depends on "growth." Fair enough, I suppose. But.
Here's why I support the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and I speak only for ME here.:
I'm an environmentalist in sort of the old-school Edward Abbey way (in fact, I'm sure I'll quote Abbey in this note.) I've always seen the problem of the environment in different ways than many other environmentalists. For instance, I see pollution not as a problem, but as a symptom of a problem.
I recently read James Speth's book The Bridge at the End of the World. While his conclusion was way too optimistic for a cynic like me, he does note that, if we continue to recycle, to maintain environmental regulations, to continue to slowly wean ourselves off of oil (for instances) we will eventually accomplish essentially nothing. The world we live in will continue to degrade and we will lose more and more wild places. Why? 2 reasons. One is population growth. But the other is consumer-based corporate capitalism, a system which continues to put profits ahead of any other motive and which is conflated with democracy and which fetishizes growth.
What does all that mean? (The following is MY view, not necessarily Speth's). Well, there were two competing forces in the Cold War: Democracy (and capitalism) and Communistic Fascism (and socialism). Obviously, the former won. However, Democracy is not the same thing as capitalism...but the "victory" was viewed largely as a victory for capitalism. (Are the two related? Certainly, but not necessarily. Also, they are not mutually exclusive--I'm not calling for an end to capitalism.) In fact, it was a victory for Democracy--for freedom. But freedom does not mean freedom to choose between advertised brands. (This is not freedom of choice; rather it's selection.) Freedom means much more than that--freedom means the ability to have agency, to make one's own life, to live as one wishes. Every fence in the world is an attack on freedom...and we have more fences than ever.
So, capitalism became, in the view of many, a "good" force in the world, one that promulgated freedom, and this is simply a misreading of history (or, perhaps, a misreading of the balances between the two.)
Along those same lines, because America has always seen economic growth (for centuries due to slave labor and the frontier) we have a fetish for growth. Any economic growth below 3% is considered "bad." Why? Why do we always need to grow? When I hear a news story that expresses disappointment that "new home sales are down" I wonder why that's a bad thing? Why isn't it good that more people are buying older homes or living within their means or not destroying more land for more and more homes (and homes--even small ones--are much larger in America than they were in the 1950s (for instance?) Indeed, we consume more now--perhaps 3 times as much--than we used to, In part, this is due to convenience. But it's also due to greed. We do and have so many things we don't "need." (I do recognize that "need" is in the eye of the beholder.)) Somewhere the "American Dream" became less about an ideal about freedom and more about economic status.
So, we're told change can't happen to help the environment or to maintain wild places (necessary, in my view, for freedom) unless we can make those changes and wild places palatable (or even profitable) for corporations. And I'm calling bullshit.
It's time we recognized that unbridled growth is just another word for greed and it comes at a cost, a cost that is unmeasurable in dollars. It's time to slow down a bit and take stock. The more we fetishize growth an an attempt to ameliorate the voice of the people with more shiny stuff, the more the 99% (which the protest refers to) will accept the greed of the 1%. A rising tide lifts all boats, perhaps, but lifts them where?
In some ways, my argument here is different from many of those protesting. I think we all need to change how we live. Some people might call this "sacrifice," but really, we're only sacrificing stuff and convenience. Money. We can all (obviously, except for those in true poverty) live with less. But without the 1% taking responsibility for their position and their ability to lessen that "sacrifice" for everyone, change seems unlikely. We spend so much in opportunity cost. We waste so much money convincing people to buy buy buy. Both the convincers and the people need to change.
I think I'm getting tangential, but this is essentially what I see in this movement. Do i think it has a chance? As you read above, I'm a cynic. I see little hope.
But I will say this: As people respond and protest and get involved, the chances of those people to live authentic lives in which they become subjects with real choices rather than simply consumers with selections grows. The more this happens, the better off we all are. And if it happens to enough people, society will change simply because of it. Things may become less important; people may chat with their neighbors rather than build more fences. People may choose smaller homes with comforts rather than larger houses with status. Maybe i'm being a bit optimistic, but without hope, what hope would there be? As Abbey wrote, "The best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy." More people involved.
Speth argues that we need to change capitalism. I think that's nobel, but unlikely. (He argues, for instance, that corporate charters should routinely be revoked if the corporation does not, overall, work for the common good. I think for such a possibility to happen, we need to change ourselves and our society first.)
And yes, I recognize that I, like everyone else involved in this movement or any movement, am being hypocritical at times. I mean, I have a TV. I have an ipod. Etc, etc. But consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. And the difference I make when tithing 10% of my income pales compared to when a very rich man or corporation does so. (This fact goes back to Abbey--the guy throwing the beer can out of the car window is not the problem. The problem stems from the system, not the individual peon within it.)
And finally, I'll end with another quote from Abbey (taken, as the other quote was, from his essay "Freedom and Wilderness..."): "There comes a point in human affairs when the ideal must become the real--or nothing. It is my contention that if we wish to save what is good in our lives and give our children a taste of the good life, we must bring a halt to the ever-expanding economy and put the growth maniacs under medical care."
And to do so, it seems to me, we need to change our definition of what "the good life" is. "The good life" or the "American Dream," it seems to me, needs to be something greater than an economic question.
Now back to my dissertation, from which this tangent sprung. Thanks for reading.
So, I'm overwhelmed with: Classes (teaching), home (maintaining) and mostly with my dissertation. It really should be halfway done by now and, frankly, I just don't know how to keep going.
I know, I know "everyone goes through this." But that doesn't make this stress any less real to me.
Sorry for the whine.
I hope YOU are ALL well!
I know, I know "everyone goes through this." But that doesn't make this stress any less real to me.
Sorry for the whine.
I hope YOU are ALL well!
Off to the cabin for two weeks. Nothing to do but relax. And read. And write. And cut wood. And fool around!
See ya'll soon!
See ya'll soon!
Not much to say, other than, hey! I cut my hair! (Well, I didn't do it; someone else did. But it's shorter than it's been in decades...)
Back to the dissertation now....
Back to the dissertation now....
