Live’s “White, Discussion”:
A favorite song from my teenage years that I hadn’t listened to in a long time. It’s taken on a different meaning. Still don’t get the “though it leaves me quite erect” part though. Would like to get the songwriter’s/Live’s take on it.
Lyrics follow: Read the rest of this entry »
Interesting video by The Boondocks, ending with speech excerpts from Mike Gravel, an independent/libertarian presidential candidate who dropped out of the race and for whom I have much respect:
The drug war is the oppressive plight of the black community, designed intentionally to target black and low-income people to further exacerbate the divide among the haves and have-nots.
Couldn’t resist posting this. Now back to work.
Written by George Orwell:
Review:
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus
Taken together, these two books give grounds for dismay. The first of them is an eloquent defence of laissez-faire capitalism, the other is an even more vehement denunciation of it. They cover to some extent the same ground, they frequently quote the same authorities, and they even start out with the same premise, since each of them assumes that Western civilization depends on the sanctity of the individual. Yet each writer is convinced that the other’s policy leads directly to slavery, and the alarming thing is that they may both be right….
Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
Both of these writers are aware of this, more or less; but since they can show no practicable way of bringing it about the combined effect of their books is a depressing one.
Observer, 9 April 1944
“Dole queues” refers to joining the unemployment lines (I had to look that up). Bold emphasis mine.
George Orwell letter, undated:
On the night in 1940 when the big ack-ack barrage was fired over London for the first time, I was in Picadilly Circus when the guns opened up, and I fled into the Cafe Royal to take cover. Among the crowd inside a good-looking, well-made youth of about twenty-five was making somewhat of a nuisance of himself with a copy of Peace News, which he was forcing upon the attention of everyone at the neighbouring tables. I got into conversation with him, and the conversation went something like this:
The youth: “I tell you, it’ll all be over by Christmas. There’s obviously going to be a compromise peace. I’m pinning my faith to Sir Samuel Hoare. It’s degrading company to be in, I admit, but still Hoare is on our side. So long as Hoare’s in Madrid, there’s always hope of a sell-out.”
Orwell: “What about all those preparations that they’re making against invasion — the pill boxes that they’re building everywhere, the Local Defense Volunteers and so forth?”
The youth: “Oh, that merely means they’re getting ready to crush the working class when the Germans get here. I suppose some of them might be fools enough to try to resist, but Churchill and the Germans between them won’t take long to settle them. Don’t worry, it’ll soon be over.”
Orwell: “Do you really want to see your children grow up Nazis?”
The youth: “Nonsense! You don’t suppose the Germans are going to encourage Fascism in this country, do you? They don’t want to breed up a race of warriors to fight against them. Their object will be to turn us into slaves. That’s why I’m a pacifist. They’ll encourage people like me.”
Orwell: “And shoot people like me?”
The youth: “That would be just too bad.”
Orwell: “But why are you so anxious to remain alive?”
The youth: “So that I can get on with my work, of course.”
It had come out in the conversation that the youth was a painter — whether good or bad I do not know; but at any rate, sincerely interested in painting and quite ready to face poverty in pursuit of it. As a painter, he would probably have been somewhat better off under a German occupation than a writer or journalist would be. But still, what he said contained a very dangerous fallacy, now very widespread in the countries where totalitarianism has not actually established itself.
The fallacy is to believe that under a dictatorial government you can be free inside. Quite a number of people console themselves with this thought, now that totalitarianism in one form or another is visibly on the up-grade in every part of the world. Out in the street the loudspeakers bellow, the flags flutter from the rooftops, the police with their tommy-guns prowl to and fro, the face of the Leader, four feet wide, glares from every hoarding; but up in the attics the secret enemies of the regime can record their thoughts in perfect freedom — that is the idea, more or less. And many people are under the impression that this is going on now in Germany and other dictatorial countries.
Why is this idea false? I pass over the fact that modern dictatorships don’t, in fact, leave the loopholes that the old-fashioned despotisms did; and also the probable weakening of the desire for intellectual liberty owing to totalitarian methods of education. The greatest mistake is to imagine that the human being is an autonomous individual. The secret freedom which you can supposedly enjoy under a despotic government is nonsense, because your thoughts are never entirely your own. Philosophers, writers, artists, even scientists, not only need encouragement and an audience, they need constant stimulation from other people. It is almost impossible to think without talking. If Defoe had really lived on a desert island, he could not have written Robinson Crusoe, nor would he have wanted to. Take away freedom of speech, and the creative faculties dry up. Had the Germans really got to England my acquaintance of the Cafe Royal would soon have found his painting deteriorating, even if the Gestapo had let him alone. And when the lid is taken off Europe, I believe one of the things that will surprise us will be to find how little worthwhile writing of any kind — even such things as diaries, for instance — has been produced in secret under the dictators.
Borrowed from the George Orwell Resources page. Bold emphasis mine.
George Orwell (a letter from February 25, 1944):
Looking through Chesterton’s Introduction to Hard Times in the Everyman Edition (incidentally, Chesterton’s Introductions to Dickens are about the best thing he ever wrote) , I note the typically sweeping statement: “There are no new ideas.” Chesterton is here claiming that the ideas which animated the French Revolution were not new ones but simply a revival of doctrines which had flourished earlier and then had been abandoned. But the claim that “there is nothing new under the sun” is one of the stock arguments of intelligent reactionaries. Catholic apologists, in particular, use it almost automatically. Everything that you can say or think has been said or thought before. Every political theory from Liberalism to Trotskyism can be shown to be a development of some heresy in the early Church. Every system of philosophy springs ultimately from the Greeks. Every scientific theory (if we are to believe the popular Catholic press) was anticipated by Roger Bacon and others in the thirteenth century. Some Hindu thinkers go even further and claim that not merely the scientific theories, but the products of applied science as well, aeroplanes, radio and the whole bag of tricks, were known to the ancient Hindus, who afterward dropped them as being unworthy of their attention.
It is not very difficult to see that this idea is rooted in the fear of progress. If there is nothing new under the sun, if the past in some shape or another always returns, then the future when it comes will be something familiar. At any rate what will never come — since it has never come before — is that hated, dreaded thing, a world of free and equal human beings. Particularly comforting to reactionary thinkers is the idea of a cyclical universe, in which the same chain of events happens over and over again. In such a universe every seeming advance towards democracy simply means that the coming age of tyranny and privilege is a little bit nearer. This belief, obviously superstitious though it is, is widely held nowadays, and is common among Fascists and near-Fascists.
In fact, there are new ideas. The idea that an advanced civilization need not rest on slavery is a relatively new idea, for instance; it is a good deal younger than the Christian religion. But even if Chesterton’s dictum were true, it would only be true in the sense that a statue is contained in every block of stone. Ideas may not change, but emphasis shifts constantly. It could be claimed, for example, that the most important part of Marx’s theory is contained in the saying: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” But before Marx developed it, what force had that saying had? Who had paid any attention to it? Who had inferred from it — what it certainly implies — that laws, religions and moral codes are all a superstructure built over existing property relations? It was Christ, according to the Gospel, who uttered the text, but it was Marx who brought it to life. And ever since he did so the motives of politicians, priests, judges, moralists and millionaires have been under the deepest suspicion — which, of course, is why they hate him so much.
Borrowed from George Orwell Resources. Bold emphasis mine.
The 1984 movie “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” is excellent. Highly recommended! I ordered it from Netflix last week and watched it alone at home.
Less than a week into the online courses and it’s making me uncomfortable. Keep trying to tell myself to bide my time, get a few courses under my belt (particularly these needed economics and political science prerequisites) before doing anything drastic or pitching attitude. Read the rest of this entry »
Classes have started so my time is very limited. Probably will stay this way quite a while. Ah well. Such is life. Read the rest of this entry »
Just watched this movie last night a friend and loved it. I didn’t know much about John Nash and am now interested in learning more, particularly about his theory of equilibrium (i.e., the “prisoners’ dilemma”). But it will have to wait for another night. Very, very busy lately.
Hmmm…learned last night that a well-publicized “hobby” party hosted by a well-known provider involved her minor child being in attendance. This I am not okay with. Read the rest of this entry »
This week’s correspondences with a big-time hobbyist. I met this man once socially, never as my client, and occasionally interact with him online. His responses will be in blue. Read the rest of this entry »
Today I am miserable. Or at least tonight. First I made the mistake of looking at this month’s cell phone bill. Goddamn overage charges. Seething…oh…my…god. Read the rest of this entry »
Just finished watching the film “Teeth” (2006), which was better than I originally expected. I’d only heard it compared with the film “Deadgirl” which sucked on so many levels as to be completely pathetic, so I assumed this would be a senseless violence flick as the other had been. But no. Instead, it has wonderful acting, a plot you can at least follow, and confronts a real issue young women are confronted with: sexual assault and mishandling. The premise is that the lead actress has “vagina dentata” where her vagina, by some weird mutation that’s never explained, has serrated teeth much like those of a shark. The leading lady isn’t going looking for trouble and is in fact a virgin when trouble finds her.
Trailer:
I liked this film considerably more than “Deadgirl” and not simply because the protagonist is female. Goes much deeper than that. “Deadgirl” was violent for the sake of being violent. In “Teeth,” the gal is trying to maintain her sexual purity in a culture obsessed with sex, fending off boys who otherwise would have left her as the weeping, powerless victim. In “Deadgirl,” the protagonist turns into a rapist and was in no way coerced into accepting that fate. “Teeth” is nice in that it presents a fantasy of sorts, not of possessing a toothed vagina but of being able to protect yourself to some extent against sexual violence. And it’s not as though the protagonist was attack-proof; her vagina just had the capability of biting off penises and fingers. Come at her with a gun and force anal sex and she’d have no greater means of protection than any other female.
It’s not about “hating” men or wishing harm upon them, at least not for me. It’s just that it would be nice if something, somehow, existed to thwart men’s brawny overpowering of women and made them think twice before treating rape like no big deal. Seems to me that men care more about an organ on their bodies than they do about womankind as an aggregate. Tell me, when did penises become of such supreme importance? You don’t see women running around worshiping our vulvae and uteri anywhere near to the extent that men commonly celebrate their penises. I just don’t get it. Seen a few penises, you’ve seen them all basically. The penis itself means absolutely nothing, IMO, if not attached to a man worth caring for. And I say this as a sex worker who has seen my fair share of penises, both in and out of the “hobby.” The novelty wore off for me long ago, probably back in my teenage years when I realized sex has everything to do with individuals and interpersonal connections and much less to do with one’s anatomical proportions. I wish more men would understand this.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and connections absolutely do matter. What our culture does to virgins is a damn shame, giving young people the impression that virginity is the last thing they ought to be concerned with protecting. Myself, I was 12 years old when I chose to have sex for the first time. My reasoning was simple: I wanted to get losing my virginity “out of the way.” Isn’t that a sad way of looking at things for people so young and impressionable? I used to not think so and, in fact, only began realizing the err of my ways in recent years. Not that a person has to be a Christian or a moralist to grasp that their body need not be shared with others who don’t genuinely appreciate it. It’s as if we have spite toward those who choose not to share themselves in full with whoever asks…’course we have spite for those who choose to as well. Seems you truly cannot win, not as a female, not these days. Sex is absolutely expected, and you are treated as abnormal if you decline or refuse.
Isn’t that odd? I find it very strange.
Not to mention the lies we tell one another to pressure for sex and attention. Too much sex on the brain, if you ask me. Seems we need to get lives that don’t revolve incessantly around what’s happening in our pants. Hormones matter, but not as much as we seem to think. Human nature matters too, but accepting this doesn’t negate the need for self-control. I’m tired of hearing people argue that we can’t expect better than violence, rape, competition, and underhanded manipulation tactics from our fellow man because we’re helpless apes driven by hormones and ‘human nature’ beyond our control. Bullshit. We didn’t develop this complex frontal lobe and a sense of self-conscious self-awareness just so that we could throw our hands in the air and pretend to be developmentally-challenged and incapable of discerning right from wrong. I don’t believe it. It’s little more than a scapegoat to avoid personal accountability.
That’s what rape is really…one person’s decision to behave very badly toward another, usually thinking it’s their right or entitlement, telling themselves and others that the victim had it coming and doesn’t really deserve sympathy. And yet, I’ve read a number of reviews professing deep pity for the rapist male characters in the film “Teeth,” whining about how NO man deserves that sort of punishment. But au contraire, rapists and asshole perverts surely do.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call this “feminist horror,” but it definitely gives you plenty to think about. Made me think about those anti-rape devices being used elsewhere in the world that I posted about on my blog last year. One looked like a spiked tampon that you insert. Let me see if I can find a pic…
It’s called Fem-Defense and is now available in Sweden.
Another method is the anti-rape condom pictured below:
Rapex brand is worn internally like a female condom and has rows of sharp teeth that somehow embed in the penis upon penetration and require medical aid to remove.
Men won’t be happy to learn that instruments to guard against rape are in the works and are designed to cause penile harm. Ah well. Can’t expect much sympathy if your original aim was to abuse a woman. Doesn’t seem fair that rape is as tolerated as it is, yet means to thwart or disrupt the frequency of rape come under fire as being unfair and/or dangerous to men. Some things I will never understand…living in this so-called “man’s world.”
What really upsets me is that devices like these would even be necessary in the first place. These are the times we live in, where women hide spikes in their vaginas to teach men that rape is wrong. Damn tragedy that we could come so far and yet still be unable to effectively communicate and respect one another’s wishes and now must resort to taking such drastic measures. “No” means “no”…and pussy spikes mean “no” too, in case that isn’t readily apparent for the dull and dim-witted.
This makes me nervous that other forms of violence toward women will escalate in response.
Newsvine
Too many dreams to count
November 8, 2009 at 6:18 pm · Filed under Civil Rights, On Body & Health, On Imagination, On Music, Film and FolkArt, On Personal Development, On Power, On Radical Feminism-Humanitarianism, On Self-Expression, On Violence, Poetry & Commentary ·Tagged civil disobedience, dreaming, MLK Jr., nonviolence, paradox
I have a dream…that assholes won’t someday be the only people in charge.
I have a dream…that people, humans on earth, of all creeds, races, and genders will set aside petty differences and learn to communicate more effectively with one another and do away with the need for escalating violence (for the most part, anyway).
I have a dream…that greater numbers of people would read and listen to the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and honestly try to understand his message as applying to all people, and especially those confronted with the most grievous oppression.
Violence appears to beget violence; however, I understand in certain cases why it may be necessary. With that said, however, the cases where it is appropriate are few and limited and require ethical fortitude to assess the situation. As an example, I offer up rape and molestation. In such cases, victims have a right to behave violently in self-defense AND seek ex post legal remedy– there is no question in my mind. Self-defense may warrant all types of violence, as with battling to protect a community during a hostile invasion or whacking an unwelcome intruder with a baseball bat to protect your home and children. We have rules to guide our social interactions, some of which have become laws, some thought to be inalienable, natural rights. The right to self-defense is one such natural right.
Hence why I didn’t like Michael Moore’s latest movie “Capitalism: A Love Story.” The part where he was adding amendments to the Bill of Rights for such things like a right to a job — this irritated me because I believe we need widespread soul-searching and discussion on the economic systems we collectively embrace because our economics have to change first and foremost, and some statement written on paper promising what can’t yet be delivered will only serve to further undermine the U.S. Constitution, which is already on life support. His ploy might seem cute, but it muddies the very serious question we must ask ourselves: what really are our rights as people?
We need to stop and seriously consider what rights we as people—not simply Americans—DO have, then separate these natural rights from the rest, marking them as special and inalienable and above all others. It will be a short list, albeit one of the most important endeavors we ever set a pencil or keystroke to.
To simply create more laws isn’t the answer, not if we can’t understand what those laws mean or how to go about ensuring them. I believe in the inalienable right to ultimately do with my body as I see fit, whether that be consuming drugs or foods others shun or committing suicide (as with physician-assisted euthanasia). Not that all things I may want to put in my body have to be made available, just that, while I understand communities and friends are affected by the choices of others, this body is mine to use and abuse as I see fit. My body belongs to me, period.
Body-builders and athletes abuse their bodies, but because doing so may involve talent, we accept it. It’s perfectly legal to be a slut but not a whore — chew on that for a while. Cigarette smokers face public ostracism and severe taxation (to pay for somebody else’s healthcare, certainly not my own) just because we’re addicts, and yet it’s perfectly legal to drink ourselves into a puddle in the bar parking lot. But because I feel I have the right to drink bleach doesn’t mean I have any desire to do so — just like knowing what my rights are.
But then again, that doesn’t absolve an individual of responsibility from caring for others and aiming to protect the welfare of us all.
The topic of abortion is a little stickier since it involves yourself and a potential person in your body. I continue to feel that so long as the potential person is dependent on your body for support, you are in the driver’s seat in making decisions affecting both of you. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean I like the idea of abortions, especially late-term ones, but there do appear times when they may be for the best. The greater issue here seems to be that an attempt to force a potential mother against her will to carry a fetus to full-term is a recipe for bad relations for all involved. We are not there by her side daily to protect the fetus, and therefore would have no way of knowing if her miscarriage was spontaneous or a self-induced result. By that rationale, we risk criminalizing mothers pre-emptively, which is a very strange concept. And we’ll be in no better position to ensure the born child’s happiness or welfare, not especially if he/she is raised by a mother who never wanted him/her. That sets up a conundrum. The mother’s rights matter, but so too should respect be paid to the life created within her.
Speaking of conundrums, it appears they abound everywhere these days. Here is an insightful, thought-provoking article written by Michael Steven Green in the Duke Law Journal (2002) on the paradox existing between our “anarchist” rights against self-incrimination and to bear arms and the “authoritarian” will of the government to maintain order and preserve the “social contract”:
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?52+Duke+L.+J.+113
I’d like to get back to these topics later when there is more time. I hope to return to having more spare time to hash over books, articles, and speeches.
Permalink Leave a Comment