The Artistic Response to Group Hatreds

Hello Fellow Seekers of Light and Truth,

Well, I've found yet another thing that pisses me off. I'm gonna have to add one more thing to this list. I know that I can't focus too much on anger, and that I've got to be positive. I know this, I understand this. However, I cannot sit idly by while wrong is done. This time, said wrong is especially insidious and horrible, because it is packaged as "truth," and "virtue," and "religious freedom," and "family values," and then taught to children as gospel truth. Here, the children who are victims become the villains.



You might have come across this video. It comes from Greensburg, Indiana, from a church called the Apostilic Truth Tabernacle. The sickest part of this video is the orgy of applause that the adults, and how they egg the kid on after he is done gleefully exclaiming that 10% of the population deserves to DIE and GO TO HELL. This is the kind of vile public attack on a group usually reserved for Taliban country, or some hideous fascist regime from the 30's, where the Jew was the predator that was corrupting  our fatherland. And don't try to argue on this point because, Oh, they're not calling for anyone to be killed, or They don't hate anybody, they just don't want their kids to think it's okay.

First of all, even if this group hasn't called for anybody to be killed, others have called for it. Listen to Pastor Curtis Knapp from Seneca, Kansas's New Hope Baptist Church.



What sickens me the most is that these men bully, berate, and demonize an entire population, and then they run and hide behind God and Scripture. They don't even have the courage of their convictions to own their hatred and prejudice. While seeing the child's glee is sickening, it is ultimately the adults who are the most at fault. It is the preacher for denying his own insecurity, and flawed nature, by condemning innocent human beings to death, damnation and public contempt just because of who they are driven to love and marry.


This is another truly disturbing video, shown on Saudi TV. If you'll notice, the 3-year-old girl is spouting the same ideas about Jews' alleged guilt as have been used through the millenia to rationalize pogroms, barbarian attacks, and ultimately the Holocaust. This hateful ideology, once again, sung sweetly into the innocent ears of a child, makes me feel nothing but rage. Rage because I know where this leads. This leads directly to genocide, it happened in Germany, it happened in Kosovo, it's happened without much notice in many other places.

I have to be honest, as I watch this kid sing, and as I see the adults riotously applaud, there's an animalistic part of my brain that wants to go, and punch and kick everybody in that audience. The only thing that sickens me even worse than seeing a person hurt, is seeing injustice, cheered and affirmed as righteousness. I used to have a big problem with anger, and sometimes I still get overwhelmed by it. I would only hit another kid in anger, hard as I could, then I would feel really bad for him when I saw him in pain.

There is something visceral about the anger I have when people cheer the beating and attacking of the helpless, the innocent, the righteous. This is just as much violence against a people as going and lynching them. Remember Tyler Clementi, two years ago? He was the Rutgers Student who was outed having a gay affair by his roommate, and then killed himself because he was embarrassed by his peers. They gave the roommate a joke, slap-on-the-hand sentence. Here, the humiliation, the damage, and the no doubt the permanent demonization in the minds of some of his classmates is the key component of the violence done to him, that destroyed him to the point where he felt only death would save him. As far as I'm concerned, if you cause that to happen to a person, you are directly responsible for his death.

I might have told you this, but I first read the book 1984 when I was 15 years old. It was a dark, confusing time in my life. I deeply identified with the struggle against a great tyrannical order. What was even more terrible about this, was that they had the people in their minds and hearts, the people who would surely know this was not just, fully believed that it was the only justice. Even the protagonist was defeated in his own mind and disowned himself, giving himself over to the lie. For a while, because of this, I lost faith in humanity. If we could be conned and taught to embrace such evil, what hope was there? We are all guilty, no matter what our nationality, religion, or societal structure.
Later, I began to learn about Eastern spiritual principles. What has stuck with me about these is that they de-emphasize the doctrine of it, and are more in tune with the flow of life itself. I later came to realize that it was the doctrinal, rhetorical emphasis that lay at the roots of this collective sin, at the risk of getting religious here. When I reviewed literature on Orwell's life and work, five years later, for a review of literature I was doing for Comm. Studies, I realized that what he was attacking was the lock-step behavior of people when they gather in groups.

Groupthink is a term that's come to be used often because of Orwell's work. I've come to use it often myself. Here, we need to ponder a lot about what it means, because I believe it holds some answers. What it means is when people get into groups, their collective behavior and thought process tends to focus on the group's preservation, rather than individual well-being or ethics. In other words, it becomes about how do we win rather than how do we care for each other, and what is the best for everyone. 1984 was an extreme example of this, but the disturbing thing is, all societies embrace this groupthink to some extent.

Think about why the parents gleefully taught this kid to desparage "the homos." It was because, at this church, the doctrine says that gays are evil. That's what the Minister preaches. It is similar to the "two minutes hate," shown in 1984, in that it trains the churchgoers to hate them as the sinners from whom all of the world's problems originate. Then they are trained to praise a "hero" who destroys the "villain," in this case, the child who is taught that when he damns people with his words, he will be rewarded, affirmed. Let's not be ambiguous here: this is violence. This is the reason so many gay, lesbian and transgender kids are killing themselves. This social torture makes them feel so rotten about themselves. When you are told you are worthless, dirty, and evil over and over again, you begin to feel dead inside, to internalize the pain.



So why would I be talking about all of this on an arts blog? Over and over, I have thought about what I would say to the question "Why do you get so political on an arts blog?" Well, as I have alluded to, I used to be much more overtly political and ideological. In fact, not long ago, I thought about getting into politics myself. I was always tense, on edge back then. I would spend hours arguing with points of view in my mind. This made life less enjoyable and more tense and argumentative. Long story short, I realized that there was something about the human experience that I saw, that demanded more than just political activism and struggle. In the last few years, the times when I have learned the most about how to heal people, is when I have explored life without judgement, with a creative eye.

The above video is from a year and a half ago. Joel Burns, a Gay City Councilman from Fort Worth, Texas, decided to give this speech after a rash of young gay kids commiting suicide, just to assure them that they were not alone. Listen to it, please. I couldn't listen to it without tears welling up. It's just a human reaction, I think. This crystallizes what my approach to issue-tackling has been over the last two years. It has to do with working from the experience we have in common, rather than the doctrines that make some good and others evil. Here, kids learn, again, from groupthink strategies, that the only way they can be accepted is for them to either ostracize, humiliate, or physically destroy some kid just because he looks different.

What this blog is about is the experience of life. The heartbreak, the love, the pain, the violence, the redemption. That is why I am talking about groupthink now. It inhibits us from owning our own life experience. We feel like we have to sell ourselves to feel liked, secure, complete. We can't claim our own experience, instead, we are subconsciously taught to hate ourselves in a variety of ways. You know, one thing I was shocked to learn is that when you watch an ad, 90% of what you take in is on a subcoscious level.

This process of melding our groupthink through ads, TV shows, movies, even stories we tell each other, does intense damage to people who are attracted to the "wrong" sex, but I believe it is not just limited to gays. Like I said, I have always loved girls, but what I find distressing is that, when boys get interested in girls, there is a certain unwritten script they expect you both to follow. The girl is expected to be the needy, emotional one who needs protection, and the boy must be confident, able to throw down at all times to protect her, and absent, except for sex. I realized early on that the script wasn't going to work for me. I came to want romance with girls, but something has always bugged me about the blind obedience people have to this way, and the condemnation you face if you ever stray from it.

I could give endless examples. The point is, groupthink kills our potential as human beings. What we need is to find our own way, and find attachments to people and groups that differentiate, in other words, they set boundaries so that we can stay free from the echo chamber that produces prejudices and hatreds against outsiders. We must learn to do this so that our children learn that NO group is sinful or evil by nature of is being different. In order that our children grow up to realize their full potential to live with others, and not claim the contempts of their parents as God's will, remember what I mentioned in the Bully post, the guy who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Undoubtedly, some will interpret this to mean that God is without sin, and therefore, God is expressing his hatred of these groups through Christians' discrimination. To me, it means that none of us has the authority to universally condemn another group as intrinsically evil, for the same sins they possess also exist in us. We all have potential to bad, but we are not defined as creatures of sin. That's the main qualm I have with Christianity; all it seems to see is our bad. We need not be defined by our baser tribal instincts, though.

Well, I'll leave it at that for now. Undoubtedly, I'll talk more about this at a future date. I saw this, and as I said I got so angry about it that I decided to convert my angry energy into creative work. It is the same principle I used in my post on Newt Gingrich. So, anyway, I'll have some more good material for you soon.

See ya, and don't forget to live!

Terrorism Hurts Everybody

Hi everybody,

As you may know, today marks the 10th anniversary since Daniel Pearl's death. Pearl was a Wall Street Journal international correspondent, who broke many stories around the world, including an incident where a US airstrike on a supposed weapons factory in Sudan actually hit an aspirin factory. In early 2002, he was sent to Pakistan to search for al qaeda moles in the Pakistani government, was subsequently abducted by one, held for demands from al qaeda, and then murdered by beheading.

When I learned of this act in depth, it was the barbarism of the acts that made me so mad about it. It was a feeling of simultaneous anger and disgust at the act. You know how he was killed? He was decapitated (head cut off), then chopped into ten pieces, and thrown in a ditch someplace in Pakistan. What other word is there for an act like that but pure animal savagery. It's just a horrible thing to do to anyone of any nationality. When I hear about groups like al qaeda carrying out acts like this against people doing their job, I almost understand the kind of guttural anger that drives people like Dick Cheney to want to bomb countries out of existence, or Rick Perry to have criminals executed, even if they are in fact innocent of murders.

It's not that I would ever do these things, or condone them, in any sense, it's just that sometimes, events in the international arena of news sometimes make you so upset that you do get to that point. You do get that level of intense anger, terror, despair about your species, cynicism, a thirst for vengeance. It can be (and sometimes has been) so overwhelming that it scares you. It scares even me how much of that emotion I have sometimes.

This is not the first time I have given issues of an international scope much thought. I came of age, spent my preteens and teens, in a world shadowed by the spector of terrorism. On the morning 9/11 occurred, I was 11 years old, overwhelmed at starting the 6th grade. So it isn't like I've had much choice in what I've become aware of. In past decades, like the 80's or 90's, you could get away with having little or no opinion in international strife and conflicts, because it didn't have a tangible effect on people's lives here in the US. On that Tuesday morning in September 2001, that perception ended abruptly and shockingly.

Since that day, I've felt like there has been a progressively more urgent nature to what happens to people in other countries. So this issue has been on my mind a lot over the years, even though I am still very young. Since I came across this information on Daniel Pearl, I was looking for a way, in my art, to deal with it. I know that won't have an effect, but it will help me express how I feel about this whole issue. Hopefully, just my sharing it with you will have some small effect.

On the one hand, as I said, I do have that anger and fear, but on the other, I do care about other nations, countries and cultures. I want to protect the people of America and the West, but I also don't want to see people on countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran, shredded, incinerated, then written off as "collateral damage." Sadly, a flipside of our American optimism is this our blindness to the damage our foreign policies, and wars, can cause. If we are an exceptional country, surely we could never kill someone who didn't deserve it. So I get that there are bad people abroad, but I also think we need to take a look at our own soul.

For a while, I racked my brain to try to come up with a way to express this. The phrase "terrorism hurts everybody" went through my mind, but I wanted to come up with a picture that represented it. That is how I express what I find through art best. I wanted to draw up an image that got at the universality of having life ripped from someone you care about. I got the idea to do this drawing.

I was inspired to do this from the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. On the night of December 21, 1988, the plane, Pan Am 103, was blown up as it was heading from London to New York City. Everybody on the plane (259 people) was killed horrifically, and when the plane hit the ground, it destroyed several houses in the Scottish town of Lockerbie, and 11 people in Lockerbie were killed. The attack was carried out by two Libyan Intelligence agents, one of whom was imprisoned, later released and returned to Libya. There is also good evidence, from official sources, that it was planned within the Libyan government.

Again, the horrible, terrifying way those people were ripped from their lives is gut wrenching. Hearing of it makes it all the more distressing that the perpetrators "got away" and one was sent back home. Again, I had dark thoughts about what I would like do to inflict pain on the people resposible, only to try to take them back soon after. In one account I read, they reported that some christmas presents that the plane was carrying back to the US lay smashed in Lockerbie. That heartbreaking image really stuck with me.

So I decided to make this image as broadly applicable as I could. I wanted it to be about the feeling of a loved one ripped from life. Just the shock, horror, and pain, is something that unites us all. I decided to make this a jarring image of the keychain of a close love falling out of the side of the plane into the darkness. I included the jettisoned christmas present alongside it. This makes it about what terrorism really costs us: people we love, care about, or know. People who don't deserve to be a victim of political or religious hostility. Thus, it applies beyond just the bombing of Flight 103, or terrorism from the Middle East.

It becomes about us all. What do we lose from terrorism? We lose fellow human beings, we lose humanity. By the way, the majority of victims of Islamic terrorism are themselves Muslims. 30 of the victims of September 11th (a full 1% of them) were Muslims, including people on the flights to Los Angeles, and Firefighters, Police Officers, and Paramedics in New York.

Listen to this beautiful video, done by Queen Rania of Jordan, about victims of terrorism who live in the Middle East and pratice Islam.

This inspired me to make this more of a universal statement. That's where I came up with the statement "Terrorism Hurts Everybody." While focusing on this "clash of civilizations" that has claimed many lives, we lose sight of those things in common that give us our humanity. We need, therefore, to reclaim this sense of common experience across borders or cultures. We need to understand that when one act of violence is carried out, someone always suffers, lives with pain for weeks, months, years afterward.

To return to my starting point, Daniel Pearl was killed because he was doing his job. He was doing his work one day, and then he got killed in this horrible way. The same could be said of nearly all other victims of contemporary terrorism. It's just that his job was to highlight goings-on in the world few of us ever encounter. His job may be one of the most crucial in this world.

Thankfully, his death was not for nothing. Now our world is getting more and more interconnected, in an economic sense, in a communal sense, in a cultural sense, in an ethical sense. This is made possible by technology like the laptop I am using right now, and the IPhone I currently own. What is diclosed in Washington DC, can now be passed on to journalists in Europe, and can launch an uprising in the Middle East.

The good thing about this interconnectedness is that it makes it much harder for us to kill indiscriminately. At the same time that technology is bringing us farther apart, it is bringing us closer together. Now our humanity is being brought to bear, as cultures around the world are not as far apart as they used to be. I do not believe this is the end-all-be-all of what needs to happen on Earth, but I do think this is the beginning. The beginning of a journey that needs to happen.

Well, more on the subject of 9/11 in the next post. I was thrilled to finally get to see Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close last Saturday night. I would have blogged about it sooner, but for the last few days, I have been tied up with homework, already, yes. I'll have that for you tomorrow.

See ya, and keep wondering, folks!

Why the Tennessee Tea Party Made a Serious Mistake

Hi there everybody,

Well, it's back to political issues again. I just had to share this little tidbit with you. The reason I am putting this up is because this goes back to the tone of discussion I would like to set. This is a tone of honestly, a willingness to talk about the issue, with all the truths of the people and parties present, however uncomfortable or jarring they may be. To me, this also requires a tone of compassion, of understanding accepting the other, whether you push back on them, call them out, or even take some action against them.

Anyway, the Tennessee Tea Party has demanded to the State's Legislature that, as well as rejecting the Affordable Care Act of two years ago, the history of our "Founding Fathers" and the country's development, be "more truthful," to use their terminology. According to them, the characters of the Founders have been "distorted," treated "unfairly." Huh? Really? Somehow, in Tennessee, of all places, Washington and Jefferson are getting a bad rep. I didn't see that one coming. In all seriousness, I believe that the Tennessee Tea Party here has made a huge mistake (like G.O.B. has below). Here's why.

This re-writing of history (because that's what it is, no matter what anyone wishes to call it) creates a convenient fiction. It promotes a simplistic, almost childlike, view of our history, our heritage, as a country. It just erases facts, important facts about what happened in our past. Don't like some aspect of our past? Just write it out of our textbooks.

This reeks of Ministry of Truth-style renderings of historical knowledge. That's why it is scary to think that one ideological faction could bend, knead, and press history into whatever shape or narrative they wish. If this is the case, how can we have freedom? How could anyone have real freedom? The freedom to explore their world, and reach whatever ideas or conclusions they believe to be right. The truth is, the children of Tennessee would not get the variety of perspective they need to be truly free to see our good work, our mistakes, and ultimately our potential as a people.

A dangerous aspect of this is that the "Founding Fathers" are turned into Gods on Earth, this time at the expense of the non-whites in the America of 1776. The submitted request to the Tennessee Legislature explicitly said this. "No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership." What this means is that the petitioners here want the curriculum to take out people and incidents which bring to light the white population's oppression of slaves, or their transgressions against the Indians.

Another criticism of theirs is that "the constitution created a republic, not a democracy." I find that interesting. The emphasis here is on the Constitution as it was first ratified back in 1787. They believe that the Constitution must never, ever change from the way it was first conceived of back then. It must never move toward a more democratic framework or expand to "create more rights." Here is the problem with that mindset. In that version of the Constitution, slavery was perfectly accepted, and runaway slaves were even required to be turned in. Slaves had no worth of their own, yet were counted as just three-fifths of a person. Indians were required to be hunted down, butchered and killed. Women were given absolutely no rights outside the home.

The sad truth is that many of the Founding Fathers (with the notable exception of Thomas Paine, who was a real visionary) had slaves of their own. There was, in fact, much concession to the slaveholders in the South, particularly Virginia and Georgia, in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. The Slave trade was at its height right in the late 18th century, around the time that revolutionary spirit caught fire in what became the US.

The Tea Party people down in Tennessee, as well as Texas and other places, will not accept these parts of our history. When Michele Bachmann intimated that the Founding Fathers ended slavery, she wasn't joking, and she wasn't just being stupid. That is what she, and many other people in this country, do believe, and want to keep believing: that the Founding Fathers can do no wrong. That America can never do anything wrong.

The danger of this belief is that it ignores, or even tries to justify, the very real wrong things done in the name of America. Like the systematic destruction and genocide of the Indians, their ethics, and their way of life. Or the violent uprooting of millions of Africans, tearing apart their culture, and stripping them of their humanity in a land where they were beaten down for the sake of profit and goods in America and Europe. Or the deeply entrenched cultural animosity, across history, towards the French, the Germans, the Eastern European Jews, the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, and now the Mexicans. If these are ignored, we are blind to our mistakes, and we will be doomed to the same cycle of animosity that has played out since America began to exist.

However, you can't blame the Tea Party people much. Well, you can if you choose, but it would be wrong. After all, seeing the shadow of something you hold so dear is tough. It would be very easy to simply not accept these facts, wish them away and , when given the chance, to simply write them out of history. It seems like you've defeated the issue, the knowledge of the transgression just disappears. However, the animosity does not. People not in the favored race or class will remember it, every time the subtle contempt comes at them.

Facing such unpleasant, even painful truths of our past is a part of growing up. It is a part of viewing our own heritage and society in a mature way. Being patriotic has nothing to do with being blind to our past, or our country being without flaws. It comes from knowing this country, its victories in the quest for truth, justice, freedom, and its downfalls. To me, it's similar to how you would love a member of your family. You would not pretend they were perfect, you would know they had flaws, but care for them, and help them heal anyway.

Paradoxically, it becomes easier to live with and love somebody when you don't have to pretend they are perfect. This goes the same with the United States of America and its people. Like I said before, I think there is a discussion that needs to happen concerning race and class history in this country. We must confront the ways, individual and systemic, intentional or unintentional, that we have marginalized and ignored the poor and the immigrants. This requires us not to blame each other excessively, but rather, to see our abuses for what they have been, in all that it entailed. We must see the dark flip side of the early prosperity of our country-the campaign against the Indians' culture and the slave trade, for all the suffering they caused.

Recently, I have been reading A People's History of the United States by the late Howard Zinn. It shows, through extensive and unknown research and documents, how the beginning of the United States was not a 100% new, radical declaration of the freedom of humanity, but a continuation of many cultural defects of old-racism, sexism, slavery, contempt for the "inferior" (i.e. native) cultures. It is absolutely required for a comprehensive understanding, what is contained in it.

I think that this also misses something, though. There are two strains of cynicism; one says that because we are the "right" ones, whatever we do must therefore be right. the other says that because what you see is not as pure, wholesome and clear cut as it seems, real transcendence is not possible, and it is pointless to try to achieve it. These are both ideas you must be careful of. I think the Tennessee Tea Party is trying to shut down this type of discussion at the very time it is most needed. Thankfully, there are a small number of people who realize that while we do not live up to our own mythologies, we nevertheless have our drives of compassion and a longing for connection.

Wow! That went on way longer than I expected it to. I always promise myself, Okay, this is just gonna be a short entry. Then, sure enough, it just comes out, and then I've written several paragraphs. Thanks for reading. I hope you bear with this, even though it can be hard to focus on these long entries. So, what do you think? Does learning about, for instance, our history with slavery scare you, or upset you? Do you believe that it wasn't really as bad as they say? Or were some of your ancestors perpetrators, or victims, of our country's racial or class divides?

See ya, and keep wondering, folks!

Citizens United: Two Years Later

I did this back in 2007 as taking note of the Corporate influence on our society.

Hi there everybody,

I remember very clearly the week of January 21, 2010. I remember, first, because it rained ferociously all that week, from Monday, the 18th, all through the next Friday, the 22nd. It rained so hard that my college's student union, that it sustained some rain damage and had to be closed for the next three months while it was repaired. The second reason is that on that particular Thursday, the decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission came down. I know I've been on a political kick the last two days, but stick with me here, and I'll tie it back to creativity.

Now, I could bore you right out of your mind with the Supreme Court jargon and legalese (read this if you're in the mood), but essentially, what that verdict said was that money given to campaigns constitutes free speech, therefore, any restriction on it would be unconstitutional. The ruling went farther to declare that all corporations and unions have the same legal right to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns as individuals do. This ruling derives from ambiguities in rulings going as far back as 1886. The question at stake here pertains to the rights of legal entities, like corporations, under the 14th Amendment.

I remember that this was a day when I was, truthfully, very scared for the future of our society. I don't mean this in a rhetorical way, I mean, very literally, that I was scared. I knew that what this ruling was really meant to do was undo all of the rules to limit the influence of money in decision-making. This would make an already-atrociously bad situation much, much worse. I didn't know how much our society might corrode. To me, on that day, and the day after, it looked to me like there was a very real chance that we could go the way of those European countries in the 30's.



I saw this newscast on that night. At the time, I felt like "This is it. Now we're gonna be on our way to a police state." I felt this because the big corporations would give the money to the uber-authoritarian political leaders, who would pass laws making the monolithic power of corporate America invincible, with anyone with any shred of power having to kiss their rings, and any small criticism punishable by God knows what. This was a classic case of worst-case scenario thinking. Like the man on the TV said "Who's gonna stop them now?"

Looking back, the rhetoric of this newscast seems hyperbolic, with the host, Keith Olbermann, infusing as much drama into it as possible. He does raise points that need to be recognized, it is just how he raises them that gives me pause. However, the changes since that infamous ruling, sanctioning any and all financial corruption, have been more subtle. Perhaps they, the financial powers, still couldn't afford to be too blatant about cashing in.The process of purchasing our "leaders" has not occurred in one fell swoop, but rather, as a decades-long process. One that started long before Citizens United came up for argument.

In America, over the years, the "private sector" has gained this ring of absolute faultlessness to it. People who praise it often evoke the image of the small business owner, toiling with great integrity in the store down the street. They invoke legendary names like Henry Ford, or more recently, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, or even Sam Walton, owner of the first Wal-Mart in Bentonville, Arkansas. What they neglect to mention are these things. First, that as more power and clout amasses among the wealthy, there is much less room for people to make it to those ranks, or just to realize their dreams. Second, too heavy an emphasis on competition diminishes our link with our common experience.

Why would I be saying this? In the current model we have, a corporation's sole purpose is to continue making money for its shareholders. Because of this, they have to do anything to remain profitable. Once a company is chronically un-profitable, it is subsumed. That's the nature of "competition" and "free enterprise" that are so above scrutiny or criticism, of any sort. Look at how much power and influence corporations hold over our society. That's why I included the drawing of the various logos at the top. Big corporate names are found all over our buildings, cities, arts centers, even sports arenas. Those seldom have the names of Athletes or folk heroes anymore, just corporate sponsors, like "Home Depot Center," or "Goldman Sachs Stadium."

One question I must ask here is What about the people who worked their asses off in that not-profitable company? That's where the shadow of corporate society appears.

In fact, caring for workers could take away from the corporation's ability to make money. If that hurts profitability, the company will just have to make those people live on less. That means workers will have to work longer, go through more stress, for the same or less in benefits. In this competition, their work no longer is anything of value, just a means to the end of profitability on the company's records. Another means of getting to that end would be to downsize them and uproot those people's lives. This competition is beginning to take its toll.

The need to profit or die in work necessitates companies being as reckless with risk as possible, whether it's a big bank with new financial instruments, or an energy company with new resources for drilling. This means the risks have to be downplayed. This is where things get hairy. Which would be more cost-efficient to do? To, for instance, install a filter in a refinery that cleaned out any pollutants in the smokestack? Or to just ship the material to some body of water to be dumped? Then, if a bunch of people nearby mysteriously begin getting sick and dying, what do you do? Would a good option be to spend money, to elect a senator or governor, to write a law letting you manufacture, and pollute, to keep making money and staying profitable? Probably, even if that means employees have to be short-changed, or the world polluted, or people getting sick or dying.

I say all this to emphasize this point: corporations do not suffer. They do not have to work on poverty wages. They do not have to live in fear of starvation, sickness, or death. They do not get sick, they do not die, and they will not be imprisoned or executed if they steal or kill. I do not say this do disparage free enterprise, or business, or competition. Realize, though, that said concepts are, in many ways, blind to the hardships of our lives. There is nothing wrong with these things. There is nothing wrong with cells in your body multiplying. However, when this gets out of control, the body can get serious, or deadly, cancer.

I believe that we need some balance between the government and business sectors of this country. My point here is that the motive to profit and compete to make the best product needs to be in check. We must have a public entity to encourage unity, collaboration, and to keep businesses working for the good of their clients. They need to be kept from buying off their cops.

Okay, so the profit motive can lead to destruction, but what should we do? In addition to the current model of profit for the shareholders, there need to be more people to whom the corporation is accountable. For instance, the employees, and all the stakeholders in a company's well-being.

Recently, I found this logo in a bike store in Downtown Long Beach. Underneath, I found a charter entitled "Declaration of Interdependence." It listed the missions of a "b" corporation,which spoke beautifully to what we need in our enterprise arena. A model based on workers' needs need not decrease freedom, it could increase the amount of freedom and well-being in our lives.

There have been many established enterprises in which the workers are the stakeholders to which the company much answer. In Spain, there are a number of such companies that operate under the title "mondragon." My brother just brought me back a book from Argentina called Sin Patron (Without a Boss), in which workers in a factory walk out to form a worker-owned collective factory.

In order to accomplish such things, we need to begin to view life in a more creative way. If the employers and the employess were in closer proximity, it would be so much more difficult for the former to exploit the latter when they needed to boost profit margins. All this entails shifting the focus from sole profit and advantage to the meaning of our work. This purpose (i.e. whatever the enterprise is set up to do) must become something that we do first, because it serves a need, and second, because it is what we enjoy. This I believe, would change the nature of what it means to go into business, or to work. This is not the end of my discussion on these subjects, but the beginning of a conversation that will continue, with the help of this blog.

See ya, and keep wondering, folks!

Martin Luther King, and the Courage of Imagination

People of the World,

I think this opening is especially appropriate, given our task today. Anyway, today marks the 83rd anniversary the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Above is the "I Have a Dream" speech, a landmark in U.S. history. We've taken this day, this monday in January, off, for every year since 1986. To many people, this first holiday after the holiday season is just a "day off," or another day at work. In the past few years, though, I have attempted to keep a few things in my heart and my mind as I go through my daily activities today.

From a young age, I was bothered by problems in the world. When I was about 15, I began feeling this pit of despair about the human condition. I worried that maybe those dark forecasters of the future, and of human nature were right after all. What if all people only cared about themselves, in the primal sense? Maybe we were all just in it for our own power, survival, and primal drives. My fear was, Did that mean people who cared about others were just deluding themselves? This was what the fear seemed to be saying to me. This was the worst possibility of all. After having read 1984 at that age, I was determined not to let this happen, not to give in to my own primal urges.

Ever since then, I've been looking for people to model my life, and my mission, after. This mission is in part a political one, and in part a psychological and sociological one, a mission of the self. The people that have remained as icons for me are people like Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, in the most grand sense. To me, it is their great senses of both compassion, and justice, the longing for freedom, and for unity. Allow me to clarify.

Both were opposed to war and institutionalized violence, whether it be of the police, or the public at large. This is something I came to identify early on in life as critical for a complete moral code. They also refused to allow oppression of any sort, by whichever party may be perpetrating it. That spoke to me in a big way. Even though I considered myself kind, and caring of people, I could not tolerate wrongs. I did not want to "learn to live with" oppression, slavery, war, despotism by government, or despotism by corporation.

Right after Osama Bin Laden was killed last May, many people were seen to write, as their Facebook statuses, a quote from Rev. Dr. King that read thusly: "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoit of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." In class, a few days later, some girl remarked, in my argumentation lecture, why she dissed that comment, "I don't think somebody who wanted rights for black people would say that about a terrorist like Bin Laden."

That comment just really got on my nerves. Here's why it pissed me off. It was not just the ignorance of King, the not knowing (some people just don't know that much about history), but the refusing to know better, the refusal to just listen. In that moment, she was just saying "I don't know what that's about, so I'm just gonna piss all over it." What really made me bonkers about it, personally, was that Martin Luther King was about so much more than just "rights for black people."

King really knew how and when to speak truth to power. People were telling him and other civil rights crusaders that, as his colleague, Rev. Joseph Lowery put it, "It is not the appropiate time." I have observed that people say that often in politics. One thing I would ask them is a simple question in the Zen tradition: "If not now, when?" If you watch the speech above, one part of it is about " The Fierce Urgency of Now." "Now is the time!" That is even more true today than it was back when those words were delivered.

Anyway, in actual fact, Martin Luther King went much further in his social action than just civil rights for the black community. Listen to the speech he gave named "Beyond Vietnam," at Riverside Church in New York on April 4, 1967.






In this speech, he talked about the other side of the Vietnam Conflict, the one that Americans rarely talk about. Namely, that the U.S. had collaborated with France to keep their claim on Vietnam. The only problem with this game-playing, as well as similar games played in Iran, Guatemala, and other places, was that the good of the country's people was not regarded. They did not get the chance to fight, struggle and work it out in their countries. The leaders of the two superpowers dictated their destinies, and the people were forced to comply. We only talked about "freedom and liberty" for them in vague, glowy terms, but first, we kept our own gains on the line. Tellingly, he finished with a JFK quote, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Martin Luther king was also aware of the economic nature of this struggle for not just civil rights, but freedom, dignity, humanity, the humanity of black, white and all other races. In the I Have a Dream speech, he decried specifically a country in which "a negro in Alabama cannot vote and a negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote." Look at where this country is now. This sense that people can do nothing about our future now haunts us like the pall of impending catastrophe in some horror movie.

One poll I looked at (I forget which one) said that 5% of the public currently believes that Congress is doing a good job. That speaks for itself. As I mentioned before, the poverty rate has been increasing rapidly in the last six years. While I was researching that, I saw stats that showed there were many more children in homelessness. I have also begun hearing that hunger is becoming a big problem for people in this country. Not just in the third world, but in the United States, there are people who are going hungry (See here and here). When Dr. King was assassinated, he was rallying at a garbage workers' strike in Memphis.

Today in America, race relations still amount to a series of volatile fault lines. The most hairy of these is the white-black divide. All you have to do is say the wrong word, or make an ill-thought-out comment, and presto, you've ignited a centuries-old clash. They feel that guttural sting of racism, that weight on their dignity. Then when you get the heat, you feel wrongly blamed for some racist sin you didn't commit. This can make for an awkward and tense coexistence. Poor bastard, you were just trying to make some clever comment, now you've hit below the belt.

What formed this old clash comes from the simple history of slavery. This gets to the key of the meaning of MLK Day. Dr. Cornel West wrote on the history of the utterly dehumanizing slave trade. He observed that the Africans had been abducted, taken for weeks in ships that festered with brutality and diseases, in which many slaves died and were thrown into the Atlantic Ocean. Once in the Americas, they were stripped of any social worth, and essentially, any humanity they had, in the brutality with which they were treated. Now, they were not the only ones to have this happen, but it has happened. Even today, if you're black, you're more likely to be unemployed, poor, looked at with suspicion, and beaten up by the police.

This robbing of humanity needs to be addressed. But how do we address it? I don't pretend to have any answers. However, I do know that we need to use our creativity. This is what I mean by the courage of imagination. We need to be forthright enough with ourselves to imagine a different world, to question that which we are told is gospel, and doubt not just when people say what is possible, but when people tell you what is impossible. Imagination means that you proclaim your freedom, and then honor the dignity of others.



Van Jones, a former Green Jobs advisor to the Obama Administration, lays out what this means beautifully here. It is an injustice that he was expelled from said administration, simply because he had explored extreme-left politics 20 years ago. Meanwhile, senior members at Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, et. al., continue to work as Obama's advisors. What Jones did here that I want to see more of is talk about freedom. In this country, we are given a very narrow definition of what freedom is. Usually, it is just a code word to promote nationalistic saber-rattling and the allowing of corporate dominance. Sadly, freedom and liberty have become meaningless feel-good phrases used by the power-brokers.

Martin Luther King knew what freedom meant. Freedom does require a struggle, but not just a physical battle. It may mean a struggle with your peers, your family, your spouse. Sometimes it means being marginalized, cut out socially. Freedom and peace are seen as static states to many, but I believe they are much more active. As King said, so beautifully, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice." Thankfully, because of this overwhelming sense of desperation in this country, there is more willingness for people to live honestly, live truthfully, to refuse to be part of old patterns. Now, this type of change can be perilous, being largely an unknown, but we have seen the shortfalls of conventional doctrines, ways of living, and our lives are shifting. Let us see where this takes us.

See ya, and keep wondering, folks!