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!

Warming the Climate, Heating up Tempers

This map I did to show potential hotspots around the world.

Hi there! Well, the good thing about doing this blog is that the potential for fresh material keeps cropping up. My reservoir is always being replenished. The problem with my last blog was that I always felt like it took a lot of energy to look at the issue of each post, then put an essay out there on it. With this, I always seem to have enough energy to do this. Lots of times, I only have ideas for a few posts in the future, but ideas suddenly crop up, and the material has its way of falling into place.

Anyway, this might cause controversy, but here goes. Last night, at dinner, a discussion at the table turned heated. My grandfather, who is visiting from back east (Barre, Mass.) brought up an email he had sent to us all early yesterday morning. He is a chemist, who specializes in the study of applying biomass for uses in fuel and other utilities. He takes a very contrarian opinion on the issue of Climate Change/Global Warming. Quoting the email, he said: "I came to the conclusion in my note below that we should put more CO2in the atmosphere ASAP to prevent the next ice age, which is overdue."

He floated this at the dinner table, and my Mom was not going to have any of it. He pointed to this story on how airliners should be spouting more fuel into the atmosphere. He has floated this hypothesis that the Earth revolves around cycles of Ice Ages, and that our climate is currently overdue for such an Ice Age. He said in the email that it is "irresponsible" to only look at part of the climate data.

On the contrary, I believe, with all due respect, that it is irresponsible to use these findings to extrapolate that we should have even less regard for what our actions do to the Earth's cycles. It seems to be a way of justifying our poor environmental habits, rather than looking at the effect our processes have on the Earth's atmospheric, tidal, and climate cycles. As such, this is not solely a scientific argument, but also about our society, and our outlook.

This was what got under my skin about his train of thought. However, you have to understand that he was part of the World War II generation. To him, technological might has always been a good thing. The idea that our collective actions could harm the earth itself would severely undercut that narrative. This is why it struck me as a smug rationalizing away information that would help our worldview, literally our view of the world, evolve, mature.

His assertion was that most climate scientists only look at a limited portion of the past climate data. This is not entirely true, by the way. My brother looked up a graph, found on wikipedia that shows CO2 levels vs. atmosphere warmth for the last 800,000 years. It is very similar to this one that I found, that shows the same data taken over the last 400,000 years.

This graph is taken from data from Epica and Vostok measurements, which look at ice findings in the Poles.

Anyway, I think my brother made exactly the right move here. Not only did it shift the focus back to a discussion of science, rather than a statement made blithely, regardless of the views of others, and the explosion of resentments pent up, but it showed, in verifiable and nonconfrontational terms, that people have been researching this and pondering the data. I think this was the perfect way to defuse this situation.

Anyway, as I said, the way he presented this view just annoyed me with its blithe mockery of ocncern for our physical Earth, the climate scientists who have found this warming to be happening, and efforts to reevaluate our communities, our use of, just, anything, because it all comes from somewhere. His argument about an ice age being overdue may be the case, but it does not necessarily mean that this much CO2 is good for the climate, still less that we should continue, at more rapid rates, to put out CO2 in the ways we are now.

Furthermore, this totally ignores the undue harm that a warming climate does to the ecosystems of the world. To say nothing of the absolute havoc, chaos, and possibly violence it will elicit in societies around the world. As I mentioned, water and food will be more difficult to produce for people, and starvation can occur, and violence can follow.

Even more startling, Harry Shearer did a piece on his Sunday radio show called "News of the Warm," last November 6. He quoted a recent study from Science Daily that outlined how climate change is shifting the landscape of the Pacific Northwest and Western Canada, much more drastically, and with the potential to introduce unwelcome new species into this area.

One line in this study said "Conditions have become more favorable to outbreaks of diseases and insects." The one thing that got me was the point that large parts of Northern California, Oregon, Washington state, Idaho and British Columbia may shift from pine forests to grasslands or sagebrush desert. Imagining Oregon and Washington state covered in the kind of desert we have down here in Southern California. Just that image in my mind was startling.

The video below is presented to show the energy industry's influence on some scientists critical of the climate data. It also highlights some of the ways that "Global Warming" does not mean that it will be hotter all the time.

In all fairness to the skeptics, I do not believe that all people who don't believe in climate change are puppets of the oil industries. I am also including a story about a physicist who was skeptical, of his own volition and will, of the Climate data, and decided to double check it himself. Here's what his findings were:

My point here is not that CO2 is bad, or to just be a "doomsayer" as my Grandfather sometimes says. In fact, just this past Friday, we all went to a screening of a film called Carbon Nation, which focuses more on energy production without spewing unnecessary CO2 into the atmosphere. It has stories of self-interested business people, newly-converted environmental caretakers, people working on this issue, and, in the case of Van Jones, a heartwarming story of community growth and rejuvenation. From the tough ghetto of Richmond, California to the struggling to of Roscoe, Texas, it provides inspirational stories. These stories make you think "Gee, I didn't think that was possible." Far from being an indictment of humanity, it was full of the rich experience of people changing their lives, with the call to responsibility for our "footprint" being the rallying cry around which their lives could grow and do what human lives can do again.

think this pencil drawing above, done back in late 2007, is a good representation of my view now. It is trying to capture the quality of this landscape, up in the Central Valley, near the town of Lost Hills, and the starkness of the rusty oil derricks and pipes running over the brittle desert floor. Here, the bleak, ugly oil machinery is juxtaposed against the mellow, picturesque Central California semi-coastal sky. Even though people try to manipulate this land, and morph it into a technological landscape, they ultimately exist and live within it, and according to its laws. This leads nicely into my view, as it eveloves, on the environment itself.

My view is that we, as humans, need to be both indicted and cared for. We should both respect the dignity of the people in the business of raw material extraction, but we also must realize that these activities are often harmful to the physical world, to the animals, and to us, as well. We must respect our technological prowess, but know enough to realize that technology can harm both its creators, us, and, again, the Earth. The Earth itself operates much like a macro-organism. Indeed, no technological development or breakthrough can occur without our physical world and the materials it provides.

Anyway, the reason I sat down to write this is to talk about the family conflict. My Mom was really getting flustered. I could see her face turning red. There seems to be more drama happening between my family members now. Or maybe it just seems that way, because I am older, and I can pick up on familial conflicts now.

I had a few reactions to this. On the one hand, as I have explained, I objected to the argument, and thought I needed to say so, and why. On the other, I didn't want to get involved in all the ruckus of my four other family members talking heatedly at each other. At many points, I just stepped out, in between saying things I wanted to say, making sure that I didn't make anyone even more agitated. I don't like the confrontation. I have come to believe that people should listen in these arguments. Anyway I don't like to write others off, and tune them out, even if I am very pissed off at them, and want to get them back. Fault me for it, but that's what I have developed.

So, I didn't want to yell back at anybody. I also do not think it is right to just go along and indulge people. To agree when you do not really agree just makes you resent them even more. They will even begin to suspect, sooner or later, that you do not really mean it when you say "Yes. Okay. Nothing is wrong. I agree." Your body language and tone of voice will give you away. I didn't want to just tune out and be apathetic, either. I think it is better to talk about and mention things, rather than ignore them or wish them away. So I couldn't yell, I couldn't play along with his point, and I didn't want to just tune him out. What could I do?

I think that it is much better to say what you mean, listen earnestly, and respond in kind. Sometimes this is dangerous, but not having any other appealing options, I usually choose either tuning out, or in my better moments, saying honestly what I believe in. I have, as often as I could, given the other person or people, room to express themselves. I believe the best way to honor someone is to listen to them. After that, you do what you have to.

So my question for you, the reeder, is this. How do you deal with uncomfortable family conflicts? Do you withdraw, or fight back, or acquiesce? Is there anything you have done that you wish you hadn't? Tell me what you think you need to express here. See you soon!

See ya, and Keep wondering, folks!

One Year Ago Today...

Well, today, we're gonna try something different. My primary focus will not be on one of my works of art, but rather, it will be an exploration of an issue that is currently taking a very bizarre, perilous direction. However, at the same time, there are many signs of hope cropping up in this country. This is about a tragic and all-too-familiar cycle playing out in our society. Now, however, there are things happening now that are subverting that, and now it seems like things actually can change in a meaningful way. I wrote (i.e. actually put pencil to paper) about this last year, and I will copy it closely here. I will make as few edits as I can, because I think that entry contained points that need to be heard here.

Anyway, as you probably know, last January 8, one year ago today (2011), Congressswoman Gabrielle Giffords was holding a saturday-morning rally out front of a Safeway in Tuscon. A crazed gunman fired at Giffords, shooting her in the head and seriously wounding her, and then he sprayed gunfire into the crowd. Six people were killed, and twenty more, including the Congresswoman, were wounded.

Among those killed were a Federal Judge, John Roll, and Christina Taylor Green, a 9-year-old girl born on September 11, 2001, and remembered by those who knew her as a bright and warm girl. That such a wholesome and promising life was cut so short made the tragedy all the more shocking and heartwrenching.

Because this was a Congresswoman that was shot, this had national political implications. When the news media learned of this, the arguing began. The right and the left reacted predictably. The liberals told the conservatives to curb the hateful and violent rhetoric. The conservatives said that it was really the liberals' fault and that they were taking away conservatives' free speech rights.

This photo is truly terrifying, isn't it? It's funny how little things about someone's picture, like his smirk, can really freak you out.

The perpetrator, Jared Lee Loughner, was a student who was not much older than me, interestingly enough. People said he was deranged, and claimed to hear voices. He wsa not overtly associated with any political movement, right or left. Why he chose to target this congresswoman is still largely obscure. His acquaintances claim that he listened to talk radio.

This leads to the central point of this writing. What was the main reason for this horrible event? The lack of civility in our discourse, say the mainstream media and political establishments. We're told that if we only toned down our heated rhetoric, then all our troubles will subside, and episodes like this one, and all the ones that preceded it,will be a bad memory. (I included two other examples of such episodes in the links provided)

My gut feelings collide on this question. While I am a pacifist at heart, and I believe in trying to heal conflicts, I also believe in the power and importance, of truth. This talk of being "civil" sounds to me like repression of the issue, denial, blissful ignorance. These never work as solutions, and often worsen the problem they were set up to solve. How can you "be civil" or "tone down your rhetoric" if something is seriously wrong, and the society you live in is being actively undermined by those who claim to lead it?

What this shooting has done, other than provide yet another instance of a mentally unstable young man venting his rage in a horrifically violent way, is to reveal just how much our national sociopolitical culture has corroded. In America today, there is this sense that those in power are there, not because of our consent, but because they were slated to be there by some invisible entity. It is as if they live in a different universe than the rest of us. They do not have to live by the same laws as us, and they are far removed from the hardships and penalties most of us have to face.

This sense has been mounting for a long time, and there are many reasons, some contradictory, that people cite this growing sentiment. People on both the right and the left feel collectively betrayed by their leaders. There is a growing sense that society will soon collapse and, given this urgency, people are looking for villains to fight and heroes to rally around. But as the situation gets more desperate, the tactics for creating this get more exaggerated and , yes, violent.

In sociology, a few years ago, I learned about the Soviet Union and the reasons it collapsed. The one that stuck with me was the feeling of illegitimacy that pervaded there in its final years. The Russians no longer believed their society was legitimate, since those running it consisted of the same cabal that had always been in charge. No one believed the propaganda they were told. Add to that a chronically weak economy, and a war machine that was bleeding the country dry, and the weakened Soviet Union easily collapsed. Of course, the Nazi Regime in Germany rose to power so quickly for the opposite reason.

But what does all this have to do with our political landscape, or the shooting in Tucson, Arizona? Well, these crises I just mentioned are things that won't be solved simply by "being civil." These feelings highlight a clear distinction between the "anointed ones" and the "others" when it comes to class.

If you're in the "anointed" class, the world is yours, and you get access to all the resources you need. If not, you better work hard, you better play by the rules we set for you. And don't even think of asking for any extra help staying afloat; that would be socialism, that would be class warfare.

Never mind that the government so reviled often works to keep afloat these titans of our economy, in the financial and energy sectors, especially. Look all around you. Look at where this country has gone. A small class of hedge fund managers, financial speculators, and energy barons, as well as military hardware designers, run a revolving-door corridor between the government and the "private sector." (Listen to this report on campaign contributions' effect on the Helath Care Reform campaign of 2009)

Legions of lobbyists nationwide ensure, with increasing frequency, that laws will favor these enterprises. When the economy goes into a nosedive,the first thing the government does is rush to save these structures, not the workers in the lower offices who are in danger of economic drowning. And there will be no real repercussions for them.

Meanwhile, the National Security State ensures, again, with increasing frequency, that the "other" classes, me, and probably you, too, aren't doing anything suspicious, especially that we are not dissenting against this in any way, in speech or action (see here for just one example).

Then, when someone's frustration boils over, the media is all too ready to provide a scapegoat. The Right media is more explicit about this; they blame the lower classes, other political wings, religions, homosexuals, even other races, although this last part is mostly implied blame. The Left is more clear about what is actually going on, but it is incomplete in its view of the solutions. Its ranks have become fractured, more interested in positioning themselves than the truth and the common good. And then there's the neoliberal wing, which calls for "civility" (also think "bipartisanship").

Usually these calls surface when said rage bolis over, and a catastrophic episode like the one in Tucson unfolds. When this division is at risk of being discovered, called into question, this is when the media and politicians call for civility. Do you see how these things work to cover up this reality?

But, as I said before, it is in my nature to see such bitter conflicts healed. Paul Jay of the Real News, a Canadian Independent news channel, covered this episode a few days after the shooting with as much depth and accuracy as anyone in the media. The report he did on it is at the top of this post. That is why the content of this post follows his lead so closely.

Now, the one thing I would like you to take away from it, and the primary reason I put it on the post, is this, the point at the end that he made is one that few other media did. We might create a civility that, rather than papering over this ugly reality, shines a light more effectively, and intensely, on it. This would cunteract the interests of those in the media, who are there to find the diversion, or catastrophe, of the week. They're in entertainment, so it's their job to find a bad guy, sell a fight, and then a happy ending. They give us the points and the "code words" (freedom, liberty, equality, what have you), and then tell us which parts of the issue to think about, and how to think about it.

This new civility could break down the traditional battle lines of political grouping, race, religion,or even class. The new question may be, are you working for the good of the country, or are you only there for your own good? This will harness the people's distress towards the ungodly alliance of "Big Government" and the top industrial and wealthy class. Then we would no longer be calling each other "racists," "bigots" and all the rest, but with truth, realize that we are all in the same boat out here. We're all flawed people. And, with the light of honesty, those prejudices can be seen, and addressed.

We would not simply have to choose the neoconservative wing of the top classes, or the neoliberal one. The world will see which entities are really "of, by, for the people" and which were set up by this state-corporate axis. The shadowy, rich enterprises which seem to have preordained our leaders, much like a WWF wrestling match, could then find theri grip slipping.

Addressing the causes of this episode itself, it is long past time to do something about the easy availability of such dangerous firearms, even sans background check. There need to be better, more efficient ways to detect, and head off, mental disorders that could turn deadly to others and the host.

A few months ago, I was in a restaurant down in Orange County, with my Dad, and a random lady started shouting about nothing in particular. The waitress told us, in what I thought was an oddly cheery and cavalier way, that she was homeless and schizophrenic, and that she often yelled at and hit customers with a cane. The police even knew her well, by name.

I thought, Will this be the new normal? Where homeless drifters yell at, and assault, random passersby? I hope this isn't what we will see more of. Not just so that Christina Taylor Green and the other five didn't die for no reason, but so that there won't have to be a mounting tally of Christina Taylor Greens before we decide to address these systemic issues. Then we can get just oen step closer to that world I, and maybe you, dream of.

Well, what do you think? Is it worth doing these entries that focus on writing and observations, rather than my artworks? Now, this is based on something I wrote down, as an essay to myself, so I consider it part of my artistic repertoire. I will focus on the artistic and creative projects I design in this blog, but these long, essay-type posts will serve to get my thoughts out, and go after tough subjects, large and small, in a way that invites you and I to bond, rather than divide, us. I hope they will get you thinking in a different way.

This is political, but it is different than most political-themed blog posts you are likely to find. This blog will touch on political, religious and societal themes, but it will take a different approach. In my previous political explorations, I sought to solve the problems of the world. I still hope to have a part in doing that, but now I am just offering insights as I believe they should be said.

My aim is not to solve all the problems. Instead, I humbly aim to shift what is possible. When you shift what is possible, you make room for all kinds of uniting of you with me, with people in this world, with the world itself. That is a large plank of what my artistic works are about, and that is what I hope to begin on this blog. What about you? Do you think there's something to what I am saying? Let me know on the comment box below, and don't forget to follow this blog. I cannot say this enough times. See ya soon and keep wondering, folks!