Reading the article "Rants of a Gamer Girl: Duke Nukem – Smack My Chick Up," my first thought was that this may also be an example of how capitalism, in its ability to profit off things like sexism and the objectification of women, actually helps to further perpetuate these things, especially when presenting them in such a way as to make them more 'socially acceptable' (e.g., by things like separating sexual violence into two categories: 'it's OK when it's simulated/presented as entertainment' and 'it's not OK when it's done for real').
From a capitalist point of view, Gearbox Software and CEO Randy Pitchford are doing things just right. They're successfully engaging their target audience (which for this particular genre of game happens to be young-to-middle-aged men) with cheeky portrayals of sexual violence, getting a lot of publicity (read 'free advertising') and selling enough games and merchandise to make a profit. Capitalism doesn't ask for much more than that, and arguably encourages it unless restricted in some way (e.g., outside by government regulations, inside by consumer spending, etc). If it's profitable, how can it be wrong?
And I think that's unfortunate since I agree that marketing these things does serve to "further promote and perpetuate a culture of violence against women." Of course, that's not to suggest that Duke Nukem or Gearbox Software are directly responsible for sexism or any sexual assaults in the US (correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation), only that I think there's a plausible link between an economic system in which sexism and sexual violence are often promoted together in general, and the prevalence of sexism and sexual violence in that society, illustrated here by the statistic in the article that "there's a woman sexually assaulted every two minutes in the U.S." This is what, in economic terms, could be called a social externality, the cost of which isn't borne by abstract market forces or private companies, but society.
That said, it's entirely possible that the prevalence of these things in various media are simply a reflection of society and societal attitudes as a whole — neither promoting nor condemning them, just acknowledging their existence — but I think enough psychological studies have shown that our attitudes about these things are often heavily influenced by our surroundings, our family structure, the social conditions and norms we're exposed to growing up, etc. In other words, it's as much a symptom of the problem as it is a link in the complex causal chain causing it.
The way I see it, it's just one big, social feed-back loop, and I think people need to consciously start looking at these things and asking themselves if there really are connections here, and if so, figuring out what to do about it. But even that's difficult to do when genders are objectified and gender stereotypes commodified. This, of course, raises the issue of censorship, which is another tricky subject.
Even Plato realized the influence certain things can have on individuals in society, but his solution — the censorship and/or banishment of poets and the like who didn't say what was for the good of his 'ideal city' — seems just as unacceptable to me as the seeming use of things like sexism and sexual violence against women (cheeky or otherwise) as marketing tools. At the same time, I'm not sure what to do about it without resorting to such drastic measures, especially when its use is often so successful. How do we change how women are viewed and portrayed in media without censoring or banishing the proverbial poets from our 'ideal city'?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
an open letter to nero bellum
Dear Marshall or Nero (whichever you prefer),
I just wanted to write you a quick letter after reading your post, "Cleanliness [a message to my world]."
The first thing I want to say is that you're not the only one who's descended into the dark abyss of depression, drug addiction and self-loathing. I'm sure many of your fans have already shared their own feelings and personal experiences with you, so I won't go into detail about mine, just add my voice in saying that I've been trapped in a similar place, too. At the beginning, it seduces you — the darkness, the drugs, the creativity trying to tear itself out of you — but more importantly, it helps you survive, acting as a security blanket for your fears and anxieties. But, as you know, all of that comes at a price.
But reading your letter, I'm heartened by the fact that, with the support of your fans, close friends and family, it seems like you're climbing your way back out. It's not an easy path to take, and you may slip and fall into old habits (and vices) along the way, but I've found from personal experience that it's a journey worth making and I wish you luck.
The second thing I want to mention is that I've been a big fan of yours (and Psyclon Nine's) for years. Your music is absolutely fucking amazing, and if you ever find yourself in a pit of despair, feeling like a failure because you're unable to recapture everything you had in the past, I hope reflecting on the fact that you've already created musical masterpieces for thousands of people to enjoy will help bring you out of the darkness and give you some peace.
Truth be told, I envy you, even with all of your flaws and painful experiences. I'd never wish to go through what you have, but at the same time, you've done what relatively few people have: you've created something unique and extraordinary, something that's appreciated by people all over the world. That in and of itself is an amazing accomplishment, and you should be proud of yourself for that alone, regardless of anything you might've done to disappoint yourself or your fans.
I honestly have no idea why I'm even bothering to write all of this garbage, but I think part of it is that I see a lot of myself in you. I fell into my own downward spiral, and I know from experience that it's a "long, hard road out of hell," so I guess I just want to give you a little encouragement or something.
Another reason is that your letter touched me, not so much as fan, but as a fellow human being. It's honest. It's real. And it's good to know that even one of my idols isn't really all that different from me (besides the whole 'making awesome fucking music' thing). We're all flawed and imperfect creatures, but the music you've created transcends those imperfections, and nothing, not even your mistakes, can take that away from you.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I really hope that you come through this experience a better (and happier) person, but even if you don't, I'll still respect you because at least you tried.
Best wishes,
Jason
I just wanted to write you a quick letter after reading your post, "Cleanliness [a message to my world]."
The first thing I want to say is that you're not the only one who's descended into the dark abyss of depression, drug addiction and self-loathing. I'm sure many of your fans have already shared their own feelings and personal experiences with you, so I won't go into detail about mine, just add my voice in saying that I've been trapped in a similar place, too. At the beginning, it seduces you — the darkness, the drugs, the creativity trying to tear itself out of you — but more importantly, it helps you survive, acting as a security blanket for your fears and anxieties. But, as you know, all of that comes at a price.
But reading your letter, I'm heartened by the fact that, with the support of your fans, close friends and family, it seems like you're climbing your way back out. It's not an easy path to take, and you may slip and fall into old habits (and vices) along the way, but I've found from personal experience that it's a journey worth making and I wish you luck.
The second thing I want to mention is that I've been a big fan of yours (and Psyclon Nine's) for years. Your music is absolutely fucking amazing, and if you ever find yourself in a pit of despair, feeling like a failure because you're unable to recapture everything you had in the past, I hope reflecting on the fact that you've already created musical masterpieces for thousands of people to enjoy will help bring you out of the darkness and give you some peace.
Truth be told, I envy you, even with all of your flaws and painful experiences. I'd never wish to go through what you have, but at the same time, you've done what relatively few people have: you've created something unique and extraordinary, something that's appreciated by people all over the world. That in and of itself is an amazing accomplishment, and you should be proud of yourself for that alone, regardless of anything you might've done to disappoint yourself or your fans.
I honestly have no idea why I'm even bothering to write all of this garbage, but I think part of it is that I see a lot of myself in you. I fell into my own downward spiral, and I know from experience that it's a "long, hard road out of hell," so I guess I just want to give you a little encouragement or something.
Another reason is that your letter touched me, not so much as fan, but as a fellow human being. It's honest. It's real. And it's good to know that even one of my idols isn't really all that different from me (besides the whole 'making awesome fucking music' thing). We're all flawed and imperfect creatures, but the music you've created transcends those imperfections, and nothing, not even your mistakes, can take that away from you.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I really hope that you come through this experience a better (and happier) person, but even if you don't, I'll still respect you because at least you tried.
Best wishes,
Jason
Monday, March 14, 2011
re: efm really is "unbelievable"
So doing a bit more research about HB-4214, I discovered that it's only the House version that states the EFM can be "an individual of firm," whereas the more recent Senate version states that it has to be an individual. The Senate bill does not preclude said individual for being associated with, or influenced by, a private corporation, however.
In addition, the EFM must have "a minimum of 5 years' experience and demonstrable expertise in business, financial or local or state budgetary matters" to be qualified for the position," not just two days of training and to pay a fee. (It seems the report I read stating that "a candidate needs to undergo only two days of training and pay a fee" must have either excluded, or was simply unaware, of this additional requirement.)
The EFM would still have control over a municipality's elected officials, which have no power "except as may be specifically authorized in writing by the emergency manager and are subject to any conditions required by the emergency manager." However, an EFM would need the approval of a majority of the electors in the municipality under their control to sell a public utility.
The EFM can also "reject, modify, or terminate 1 or more terms and conditions of an existing contract [including collective bargaining agreements]" if the EFM and state treasurer decide that it's "reasonable and necessary."
Finally, the EFM, which is granted immunity of liability, has the ability to suspend elected officials' "access to the local government's office facilities, electronic mail, and internal information systems" if they fail to carry out the EFM's orders. The bill also says, "Immediately upon the local government being placed in receivership under section 15 and during the pendency of the receivership, the salary, wages, or other compensation, including the accrual of postemployment benefits, and other benefits of the chief administrative officer and members of the governing body of the local government shall be eliminated."
While some of the things aren't as bad as previously reported (or have been since amended), I still think it's an egregious piece of legislation giving the governor and his appointed EFM far too much authority.
In addition, the EFM must have "a minimum of 5 years' experience and demonstrable expertise in business, financial or local or state budgetary matters" to be qualified for the position," not just two days of training and to pay a fee. (It seems the report I read stating that "a candidate needs to undergo only two days of training and pay a fee" must have either excluded, or was simply unaware, of this additional requirement.)
The EFM would still have control over a municipality's elected officials, which have no power "except as may be specifically authorized in writing by the emergency manager and are subject to any conditions required by the emergency manager." However, an EFM would need the approval of a majority of the electors in the municipality under their control to sell a public utility.
The EFM can also "reject, modify, or terminate 1 or more terms and conditions of an existing contract [including collective bargaining agreements]" if the EFM and state treasurer decide that it's "reasonable and necessary."
Finally, the EFM, which is granted immunity of liability, has the ability to suspend elected officials' "access to the local government's office facilities, electronic mail, and internal information systems" if they fail to carry out the EFM's orders. The bill also says, "Immediately upon the local government being placed in receivership under section 15 and during the pendency of the receivership, the salary, wages, or other compensation, including the accrual of postemployment benefits, and other benefits of the chief administrative officer and members of the governing body of the local government shall be eliminated."
While some of the things aren't as bad as previously reported (or have been since amended), I still think it's an egregious piece of legislation giving the governor and his appointed EFM far too much authority.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
buddhism and politics
As a Buddhist, I do my best to apply Buddhist teachings and practices to all aspects of my life, including my political activism. This, of course, raises some questions, such as, What sort of political philosophy is most compatible with Buddhism? and Does Buddhism support socialism? As a democratic socialist, I'd like to say yes, but the teachings of the Buddha that are recorded in the Pali Canon are more or less apolitical, so applying them to my political philosophy requires a bit more investigation and thought.
The Buddha doesn't explicitly promote a particular political philosophy, being more concerned with problems of ethics and phenomenology. But he does give some pragmatic advice to lay-followers within the existing political economic system of the time, mainly dealing with generosity, honesty and fulfilling one's duties in society (e.g., DN 31). So in answer to the first, I'd say that Buddhism itself is compatible with pretty much any political-economic system as it predominately deals with developing virtue, concentration and discernment within whatever worldly circumstances we’re confronted with, not the circumstances themselves.
Moreover, I agree with Richard Gombrich that, "The Buddha's Dhamma represents a strong form of what has been called 'religious individualism'" (Theravada Buddhism, 72). I say this because the teachings on kamma (literally 'action') focus on individual actions and their consequences, and not so much collective or societal actions. So Buddhist virtue ethics are generally seen as a personal matter that each individual is encouraged to explore and develop on their own.
As for the second question, there's nothing in the Suttas to suggest that the Buddha was either for or against private ownership of the means of production, especially in the modern industrial sense. That's not a question anybody could have foreseen 2,600 years ago.
Furthermore, while it's true the Buddha encouraged generosity among his lay-followers, and that his monastic community has a relatively egalitarian communal structure, his teachings were also quite popular with the rising mercantile class in India at that time, and many of his wealthier lay-followers were merchants. In fact, I think the Buddha's advice to the lay-community regarding livelihood sounds more like some kind of enlightened entrepreneurialism than socialism.
In DN 31, for example, the Buddha advises lay-followers to use a portion of their income for personal use, including charitable donations, but he also advises that some of it should be used for business investments and saved for hard times, as well. This shows that the Buddha wasn't necessarily against consumption, private property rights and/or the accumulation of wealth, but there are suttas which seem to suggest that he was at least in favour of some type of welfare-state.
There's the case of DN 5, for example, where the brahmin Kutadanta asks the Buddha for advice on how to best conduct a great sacrifice. Kutadanta, who was evidently wealthy, had been given a village and some land by King Bimbisara, which he ruled as a king himself. On being asked by Kutadanta — who had a legion of animals waiting to be slaughtered — how to perform a great sacrifice, the Buddha answered with a fable about a great king who asks his chaplain a similar question.
Long story short, the king (i.e., the state), who'd amassed great personal wealth but whose kingdom was "beset by thieves" and "infested with brigands," is told by his chaplain that taxing the people, executing and imprisoning them, or simply banishing them from the land won't solve his kingdom's problems, and is given this advice:
Nevertheless, I don't think that the Buddha would object to a more egalitarian, socialist society that tries to limit the economic and societal conditions which foster things like greed and violence, and the way Buddhism has affected me personally has lead me to adopt more socialist-leaning views. As Albert Einstein put it, "the real purpose of socialism is... to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development," and I have a hard time not getting involved when I see what I perceive to be people being preyed upon by greed, hatred and delusion.
Before I became interested in Buddhism, I didn't really have any political-economic views to speak of. In fact, I was completely uninterested in political economy whatsoever. After years of studying and practicing Buddhism, however, I began to take more of an interest. This was partially due to cultivating compassion and being more sensitive the suffering of others.
Of course, it became clear to me early on that the world was imperfect, and that there is, and always been, suffering in the world. I also realized that it can't be 'fixed,' that there are no perfect solutions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to do what we can to make things better, and that's certainly compatible with Buddhism and Buddhist ethics in general. But more specifically, I think that the seemingly unrelated aims of communism/socialism and Buddhism are actually quite compatible, even in the sense that Karl Marx uses it, i.e. the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the working class. For example, in The German Ideology, Marx writes:
One of the things that I really find interesting in Marx's writings is his materialist conception of history and the idea that "the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production." While Marx's theory was set within a specific context — that of the complex relationship between the production and reproduction of material requirements of life and the historical development of human society — I think it has much wider implications.
For example, I'm of the opinion that things such as identity are conditioned, at least in part, by the historical and material conditions that we find ourselves in, and that changes in those conditions can fundamentally alter our identity and the ways in which we express ourselves, and vice versa. Not in a rigidly deterministic way, however, but in a complex and symbiotic way.
This idea isn't necessarily new, of course. The Buddha, for example, developed similar ideas about identity in his teachings on kamma and dependent co-arising. In short, he viewed our sense of self as a continuous process—something which is always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli. Furthermore, he observed that there are times when our sense of self causes us a great deal of suffering, times when we cling very strongly to those momentary and fleeting identities and the objects of our sensory experience on which they're based in ways that cause a great deal of mental stress.
But whereas the Buddha's focus was primarily on how to liberate the individual from their suffering by mastering this process of 'I-making' and 'my-making,' Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, was primarily on how to liberate society from their suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. Of course, I disagree with some of Marx's ideas and methods, but I still find a lot of his writings worth reading. Hell, even the Dalai Lama once said:
The Buddha doesn't explicitly promote a particular political philosophy, being more concerned with problems of ethics and phenomenology. But he does give some pragmatic advice to lay-followers within the existing political economic system of the time, mainly dealing with generosity, honesty and fulfilling one's duties in society (e.g., DN 31). So in answer to the first, I'd say that Buddhism itself is compatible with pretty much any political-economic system as it predominately deals with developing virtue, concentration and discernment within whatever worldly circumstances we’re confronted with, not the circumstances themselves.
Moreover, I agree with Richard Gombrich that, "The Buddha's Dhamma represents a strong form of what has been called 'religious individualism'" (Theravada Buddhism, 72). I say this because the teachings on kamma (literally 'action') focus on individual actions and their consequences, and not so much collective or societal actions. So Buddhist virtue ethics are generally seen as a personal matter that each individual is encouraged to explore and develop on their own.
As for the second question, there's nothing in the Suttas to suggest that the Buddha was either for or against private ownership of the means of production, especially in the modern industrial sense. That's not a question anybody could have foreseen 2,600 years ago.
Furthermore, while it's true the Buddha encouraged generosity among his lay-followers, and that his monastic community has a relatively egalitarian communal structure, his teachings were also quite popular with the rising mercantile class in India at that time, and many of his wealthier lay-followers were merchants. In fact, I think the Buddha's advice to the lay-community regarding livelihood sounds more like some kind of enlightened entrepreneurialism than socialism.
In DN 31, for example, the Buddha advises lay-followers to use a portion of their income for personal use, including charitable donations, but he also advises that some of it should be used for business investments and saved for hard times, as well. This shows that the Buddha wasn't necessarily against consumption, private property rights and/or the accumulation of wealth, but there are suttas which seem to suggest that he was at least in favour of some type of welfare-state.
There's the case of DN 5, for example, where the brahmin Kutadanta asks the Buddha for advice on how to best conduct a great sacrifice. Kutadanta, who was evidently wealthy, had been given a village and some land by King Bimbisara, which he ruled as a king himself. On being asked by Kutadanta — who had a legion of animals waiting to be slaughtered — how to perform a great sacrifice, the Buddha answered with a fable about a great king who asks his chaplain a similar question.
Long story short, the king (i.e., the state), who'd amassed great personal wealth but whose kingdom was "beset by thieves" and "infested with brigands," is told by his chaplain that taxing the people, executing and imprisoning them, or simply banishing them from the land won't solve his kingdom's problems, and is given this advice:
To those in the kingdom who are engaged in cultivating crops and raising cattle, let Your Majesty distribute grain and fodder; to those in trade, give capital; to those in government service assign proper living wages. Then those people, being intent on their occupations, will not harm the kingdom. Your Majesty's revenues will be great, the land will be tranquil and not beset by thieves, and the people, with joy in their hearts, will play with their children, and will dwell in open houses.
Nevertheless, I don't think that the Buddha would object to a more egalitarian, socialist society that tries to limit the economic and societal conditions which foster things like greed and violence, and the way Buddhism has affected me personally has lead me to adopt more socialist-leaning views. As Albert Einstein put it, "the real purpose of socialism is... to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development," and I have a hard time not getting involved when I see what I perceive to be people being preyed upon by greed, hatred and delusion.
Before I became interested in Buddhism, I didn't really have any political-economic views to speak of. In fact, I was completely uninterested in political economy whatsoever. After years of studying and practicing Buddhism, however, I began to take more of an interest. This was partially due to cultivating compassion and being more sensitive the suffering of others.
Of course, it became clear to me early on that the world was imperfect, and that there is, and always been, suffering in the world. I also realized that it can't be 'fixed,' that there are no perfect solutions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to do what we can to make things better, and that's certainly compatible with Buddhism and Buddhist ethics in general. But more specifically, I think that the seemingly unrelated aims of communism/socialism and Buddhism are actually quite compatible, even in the sense that Karl Marx uses it, i.e. the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the working class. For example, in The German Ideology, Marx writes:
Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.
One of the things that I really find interesting in Marx's writings is his materialist conception of history and the idea that "the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production." While Marx's theory was set within a specific context — that of the complex relationship between the production and reproduction of material requirements of life and the historical development of human society — I think it has much wider implications.
For example, I'm of the opinion that things such as identity are conditioned, at least in part, by the historical and material conditions that we find ourselves in, and that changes in those conditions can fundamentally alter our identity and the ways in which we express ourselves, and vice versa. Not in a rigidly deterministic way, however, but in a complex and symbiotic way.
This idea isn't necessarily new, of course. The Buddha, for example, developed similar ideas about identity in his teachings on kamma and dependent co-arising. In short, he viewed our sense of self as a continuous process—something which is always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli. Furthermore, he observed that there are times when our sense of self causes us a great deal of suffering, times when we cling very strongly to those momentary and fleeting identities and the objects of our sensory experience on which they're based in ways that cause a great deal of mental stress.
But whereas the Buddha's focus was primarily on how to liberate the individual from their suffering by mastering this process of 'I-making' and 'my-making,' Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, was primarily on how to liberate society from their suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. Of course, I disagree with some of Marx's ideas and methods, but I still find a lot of his writings worth reading. Hell, even the Dalai Lama once said:
Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.
As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is [not] much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
Friday, March 11, 2011
stand up, fight back!
I'm not blind. I understand that we have more political freedom here in the US than they do in places like China, Iran or North Korea. I also understand how fortunate I am to enjoy that freedom. But that doesn't mean that that freedom, which we've struggled for over two hundred years to expand and protect, isn't quietly being eroded away by modern-day Federalists and corporatists in collusion with big-monied interests and large, multinational corporations.
My philosophy of government is fairly positive. The way I see it, civil society is the establishment of a cohesive social structure in which the interests of the community as a whole are weighed against that of the individual in an effort to maintain social stability. Government, then, is the physical manifestation of community interests. It creates stability through the establishment and enforcement of laws, and acts as a mediator in disputes between groups and individuals within the community.
Of course, I think it's preferable if a balance can be struck where individual freedoms aren't too restricted and the continued survival of the community is reasonably assured, but allowing unlimited freedom amounts to anarchy and lawlessness, which often leads to increased social conflict and instability. How far the government should go in meeting the needs of the community, however, is an open question.
The problem is that, for the most part, our government is a manifestation of ruling class interests, that is to say, those who own and control the means of production, finance, natural resources, etc., and not that of the entire community. In fact, the interests of the ruling class, the interests of capital, are often in conflict with those of average citizens. But this isn't anything new.
The state has been skewed in favour of the ruling class from the very beginning. Although some of the Founders, namely Thomas Paine, did advocate for things like the abolition of slavery, free public education, progressive taxation, social safety nets (e.g., old-age pensions), etc., the Founding Fathers, while arguably great men, weren't fighting for universal freedom and suffrage, they were fighting for the freedom of white, male property owners from the tyranny of the British monarchy.
Like most forms of government centered around private property rights, the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society."
The Federalist Papers were a series of essays arguing for the ratification of our Constitution. Federalist No. 10, written by Madison, addresses the question of factions, which he defines as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Believing that an individual's interest "would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity," he saw groups of individuals, or factions, as an even greater threat to individual liberty, even though paradoxically, he saw liberty as the cause by which factions arise. His solution, then, was to try to control the effects of factions within American society. This could be accomplished, he argued, by the establishment of a republic in favour of a direct democracy. And the representatives in this new republic were initially elected by a select few, namely white, male property owners.
While I agree with Madison, albeit somewhat reluctantly, about the dangers of having a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest who can take away the rights of the minority of other citizens, this can just as easily lead to the reverse, e.g., a minority of wealthy/propertied interests excluding the majority of poor/propertyless from voting, or in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, from effectively influencing the political process.
One of the few things I think Andrew Jackson got right (as opposed to his support of slavery and the Indian Removal Act) was his support for expanded suffrage, which at that time meant extending the right to vote to include all white males instead of just white, male property owners. Without removing this form of class antagonism, civil unrest on the part of the poor and disenfranchised could have gotten to the point where revolt was a serious possibility. Removing this restriction, however, allowed more people to become directly involved in the political process, giving them (at least in theory) a more constructive way to address their grievances than violence. It was the first step in the ongoing fight for equality and universal suffrage.
But as a general principle, the ruling class seeks to do as little for the average citizen as it can. It wasn't until 1870, for example, that African American males were allowed to vote. And women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. 1920! So what changed? Was it the interests of the ruling class? Perhaps in some cases, but the vast majority of changes came after long, hard struggles by average men and women seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From the abolition of slavery to the right of women to vote to the 40 hour work day, it was due to the bravery of ordinary, everyday men and women who were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in that we have these things today.
Regardless of where one stands on the left-right political spectrum, I think it can be agreed by the majority who seriously think about it that, part of the reason we're losing the battle for political democracy in the US is the lack of civic participation on the part of its citizens. People can't just vote once a year and think that's the end of their civic obligation. Hell, most of the time they don't even do that much. Here in Oregon, for example, we can vote by mail. We don't even have to leave our house to vote and we still can't reach 100% turnout! Voter turnout for the entire US during the 2008 presidential election — the highest since 1964 — was only 63%. And many statewide elections are decided by even less.
But we need to do even more than that to win and secure our political freedom. We need to call and write our representatives. We need to go to their offices and talk to them face to face. We need to run for office ourselves. We need to organize with other like-minded individuals and push for the policies we want. We need to take to the streets in rallies and protests if need be. I vote, but I'm not under the illusion that my one vote can have as much of an impact as my political activism can. That's why today, I'm planning on walking 2.3 miles to Pioneer Square in downtown Portland, hopefully arriving by 2:30pm along with everyone else who's planning to march and gather in support of the students and workers of Wisconsin.
It's not just about Wisconsin, though. It's much bigger than that. It's about Ohio and Michigan. It's about every city and state whose unions are under attack. It's about the poor and the elderly who are being targeted to shoulder the burden of tax cuts for businesses. It's about attacks on everything from public education and PBS, to reproductive healthcare and even democracy itself. I really wish people would start paying more attention to what's happening in places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and start fighting back.
We're spending over $663.8 billion on weapons, overseas military bases and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can't even manage to fund public schools and care for the elderly here at home. That's $663, 800, 000, 000! More than Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan and Russia combined, accounting for 40% of total global arms spending.
I don't know how many other people out there feel the way I do and are willing to try and do something about it, but I'm tired of reading the news and seeing this insanity become the status quo. If we don't start taking notice and getting more politically active, we're going to find ourselves in an Orwellian/Atwood-esque dystopia. Apathy and complacency are the real enemies of freedom in the US, and I hope that at least some of you will join me in trying to put power back into the hands of the people. We need to understand that we're all in this together; and as the old IWW motto goes, "An injury to one is an injury to all."
My philosophy of government is fairly positive. The way I see it, civil society is the establishment of a cohesive social structure in which the interests of the community as a whole are weighed against that of the individual in an effort to maintain social stability. Government, then, is the physical manifestation of community interests. It creates stability through the establishment and enforcement of laws, and acts as a mediator in disputes between groups and individuals within the community.
Of course, I think it's preferable if a balance can be struck where individual freedoms aren't too restricted and the continued survival of the community is reasonably assured, but allowing unlimited freedom amounts to anarchy and lawlessness, which often leads to increased social conflict and instability. How far the government should go in meeting the needs of the community, however, is an open question.
The problem is that, for the most part, our government is a manifestation of ruling class interests, that is to say, those who own and control the means of production, finance, natural resources, etc., and not that of the entire community. In fact, the interests of the ruling class, the interests of capital, are often in conflict with those of average citizens. But this isn't anything new.
The state has been skewed in favour of the ruling class from the very beginning. Although some of the Founders, namely Thomas Paine, did advocate for things like the abolition of slavery, free public education, progressive taxation, social safety nets (e.g., old-age pensions), etc., the Founding Fathers, while arguably great men, weren't fighting for universal freedom and suffrage, they were fighting for the freedom of white, male property owners from the tyranny of the British monarchy.
Like most forms of government centered around private property rights, the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society."
The Federalist Papers were a series of essays arguing for the ratification of our Constitution. Federalist No. 10, written by Madison, addresses the question of factions, which he defines as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Believing that an individual's interest "would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity," he saw groups of individuals, or factions, as an even greater threat to individual liberty, even though paradoxically, he saw liberty as the cause by which factions arise. His solution, then, was to try to control the effects of factions within American society. This could be accomplished, he argued, by the establishment of a republic in favour of a direct democracy. And the representatives in this new republic were initially elected by a select few, namely white, male property owners.
While I agree with Madison, albeit somewhat reluctantly, about the dangers of having a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest who can take away the rights of the minority of other citizens, this can just as easily lead to the reverse, e.g., a minority of wealthy/propertied interests excluding the majority of poor/propertyless from voting, or in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, from effectively influencing the political process.
One of the few things I think Andrew Jackson got right (as opposed to his support of slavery and the Indian Removal Act) was his support for expanded suffrage, which at that time meant extending the right to vote to include all white males instead of just white, male property owners. Without removing this form of class antagonism, civil unrest on the part of the poor and disenfranchised could have gotten to the point where revolt was a serious possibility. Removing this restriction, however, allowed more people to become directly involved in the political process, giving them (at least in theory) a more constructive way to address their grievances than violence. It was the first step in the ongoing fight for equality and universal suffrage.
But as a general principle, the ruling class seeks to do as little for the average citizen as it can. It wasn't until 1870, for example, that African American males were allowed to vote. And women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. 1920! So what changed? Was it the interests of the ruling class? Perhaps in some cases, but the vast majority of changes came after long, hard struggles by average men and women seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From the abolition of slavery to the right of women to vote to the 40 hour work day, it was due to the bravery of ordinary, everyday men and women who were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in that we have these things today.
Regardless of where one stands on the left-right political spectrum, I think it can be agreed by the majority who seriously think about it that, part of the reason we're losing the battle for political democracy in the US is the lack of civic participation on the part of its citizens. People can't just vote once a year and think that's the end of their civic obligation. Hell, most of the time they don't even do that much. Here in Oregon, for example, we can vote by mail. We don't even have to leave our house to vote and we still can't reach 100% turnout! Voter turnout for the entire US during the 2008 presidential election — the highest since 1964 — was only 63%. And many statewide elections are decided by even less.
But we need to do even more than that to win and secure our political freedom. We need to call and write our representatives. We need to go to their offices and talk to them face to face. We need to run for office ourselves. We need to organize with other like-minded individuals and push for the policies we want. We need to take to the streets in rallies and protests if need be. I vote, but I'm not under the illusion that my one vote can have as much of an impact as my political activism can. That's why today, I'm planning on walking 2.3 miles to Pioneer Square in downtown Portland, hopefully arriving by 2:30pm along with everyone else who's planning to march and gather in support of the students and workers of Wisconsin.
It's not just about Wisconsin, though. It's much bigger than that. It's about Ohio and Michigan. It's about every city and state whose unions are under attack. It's about the poor and the elderly who are being targeted to shoulder the burden of tax cuts for businesses. It's about attacks on everything from public education and PBS, to reproductive healthcare and even democracy itself. I really wish people would start paying more attention to what's happening in places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and start fighting back.
We're spending over $663.8 billion on weapons, overseas military bases and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can't even manage to fund public schools and care for the elderly here at home. That's $663, 800, 000, 000! More than Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan and Russia combined, accounting for 40% of total global arms spending.
I don't know how many other people out there feel the way I do and are willing to try and do something about it, but I'm tired of reading the news and seeing this insanity become the status quo. If we don't start taking notice and getting more politically active, we're going to find ourselves in an Orwellian/Atwood-esque dystopia. Apathy and complacency are the real enemies of freedom in the US, and I hope that at least some of you will join me in trying to put power back into the hands of the people. We need to understand that we're all in this together; and as the old IWW motto goes, "An injury to one is an injury to all."
Thursday, March 10, 2011
an injury to one is an injury to all
Tomorrow I'm planning on walking 2.3 miles to Pioneer Square in downtown Portland, hopefully arriving by 2:30pm along with everyone else who's planning to march and gather in support of the students and workers of Wisconsin.
But it's not just about Wisconsin. It's about Ohio and Michigan. It's about every city and state whose unions are under attack. It's about the poor and the elderly who are being targeted to shoulder the burden of tax cuts for businesses. It's about attacks on everything from public education and PBS, to reproductive healthcare and even democracy itself. I really wish people would start paying more attention to what's happening in places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and start fighting back.
We're spending over $663.8 billion on weapons, overseas military bases and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can't even manage to fund public schools and care for the elderly here at home. That's $663, 800, 000, 000! That's more than Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan and Russia combined, and accounts for 40% of total global arms spending.
I don't know how many other people out there feel the way I do and are willing to try and do something about it, but I'm tired of reading the news and seeing this insanity become the status quo. If we don't start taking notice and getting more active, we're going to find ourselves in an Orwellian/Atwood-esque dystopia.
Apathy and complacency are the real enemies of freedom in the US, and I hope that at least some of you will join me in trying to put power back into the hands of the people. We need to understand that we're all in this together; and as the old IWW motto goes, "An injury to one is an injury to all."
But it's not just about Wisconsin. It's about Ohio and Michigan. It's about every city and state whose unions are under attack. It's about the poor and the elderly who are being targeted to shoulder the burden of tax cuts for businesses. It's about attacks on everything from public education and PBS, to reproductive healthcare and even democracy itself. I really wish people would start paying more attention to what's happening in places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and start fighting back.
We're spending over $663.8 billion on weapons, overseas military bases and the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can't even manage to fund public schools and care for the elderly here at home. That's $663, 800, 000, 000! That's more than Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan and Russia combined, and accounts for 40% of total global arms spending.
I don't know how many other people out there feel the way I do and are willing to try and do something about it, but I'm tired of reading the news and seeing this insanity become the status quo. If we don't start taking notice and getting more active, we're going to find ourselves in an Orwellian/Atwood-esque dystopia.
Apathy and complacency are the real enemies of freedom in the US, and I hope that at least some of you will join me in trying to put power back into the hands of the people. We need to understand that we're all in this together; and as the old IWW motto goes, "An injury to one is an injury to all."
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
efm really is "unbelievable"
If you think what Governor Walker is doing in Wisconsin is bad, check out the shit Governor Snyder is trying to pull in Michigan with his backing of emergency financial manager legislation.
If passed, the governor would have the ability to declare a financial emergency in any town, village, city or township, and put that municipality under the authority of an emergency financial manager. This appointed EFM would not only have the power to unilaterally modify or even cancel existing union contracts and collective bargaining agreements, stripping away public sector union rights, but the ability to dismiss elected officials and even disincorporate or dissolve municipal governments.
As if that wasn't enough, the EFM would also be able to privatize all public services, merge school districts together and increase existing class sizes, and shift a community's debt burden onto local taxpayers seemingly at will. And the best part is, to qualify as an EFM, all you apparently need is to undergo two days of training and pay a fee.
That's right, an unelected official with as little as two days of training could have the ability to "overrule elected officials and dissolve units of government and school districts" (The Detroit News).
If passed, the governor would have the ability to declare a financial emergency in any town, village, city or township, and put that municipality under the authority of an emergency financial manager. This appointed EFM would not only have the power to unilaterally modify or even cancel existing union contracts and collective bargaining agreements, stripping away public sector union rights, but the ability to dismiss elected officials and even disincorporate or dissolve municipal governments.
As if that wasn't enough, the EFM would also be able to privatize all public services, merge school districts together and increase existing class sizes, and shift a community's debt burden onto local taxpayers seemingly at will. And the best part is, to qualify as an EFM, all you apparently need is to undergo two days of training and pay a fee.
That's right, an unelected official with as little as two days of training could have the ability to "overrule elected officials and dissolve units of government and school districts" (The Detroit News).
Monday, March 7, 2011
re: fair and balanced, my ass!
OK, so I was challenged to watch the whole interview by a person who didn't think that it was supposed to be Wisconsin they were at, since "if you listen to what they're saying, the guys says 'on the weekend, people are bused in from Wisconsin.'"
I watched the entire clip, and my opinion is still the same. To begin with, the context of the beginning monologue and subsequent interview is clearly the protests in Madison, Wisconsin. O'Reilly starts the segment by talking about the protests in Madison, which then segues into the interview with Mike Tobin, who himself is in Madison.
During the monlogue, they're showing clips of angry protesters, with only the caption "union protests" on them; and during the interview, they're showing the same clips interspliced with video coverage that's actually from Madison. I also noticed that during the introduction, O'Reilly mentions that Tobin "has experienced pro-union anger first-hand," which I think is used to further imply the connection between the people in clips and what's actually taking place in Madison.
Now keeping in mind that the context of this entire segment is clearly the pro-union protests in Madison, as far as I can see, they makes absolutely no attempt to identify where this other footage with the palm trees in the background is from, or to differentiate it from the actual footage from Madison.
The effect is to make them appear current and directly related to what's happening in Madison, but there's no date, no location, and absolutely no context whatsoever. Of course, they don't flat out say, "These video clips are all from protests in Madison," but they're presenting them in such a way that it's implied. I think that's dishonest and unprofessional for a new organization even though it's not outright lying.
Sure, they're vague about it all, talking about how the union organizers are busing people in from out of town, but it seems to me the implication here is clear—that what they're talking about (i.e., the protests in Madison) and what's being shown (i.e., angry protesters) is directly related.
If those were clips of people who were bused to Wisconsin from another state, or sympathy protesters in another state, they should have labelled it as such. But they didn't, and I think it's obvious why—to make the pro-union side look more extreme than they really are in order to match Tobin's 'personal experience.'
Now Tobin may or may not have experienced harassment, but we're not shown any of that footage. Instead, all we see is what appears to be a bunch of unruly protesters in a completely different and unnamed city. That's not fair and balanced, in my book; it's biased and deceptive.
I watched the entire clip, and my opinion is still the same. To begin with, the context of the beginning monologue and subsequent interview is clearly the protests in Madison, Wisconsin. O'Reilly starts the segment by talking about the protests in Madison, which then segues into the interview with Mike Tobin, who himself is in Madison.
During the monlogue, they're showing clips of angry protesters, with only the caption "union protests" on them; and during the interview, they're showing the same clips interspliced with video coverage that's actually from Madison. I also noticed that during the introduction, O'Reilly mentions that Tobin "has experienced pro-union anger first-hand," which I think is used to further imply the connection between the people in clips and what's actually taking place in Madison.
Now keeping in mind that the context of this entire segment is clearly the pro-union protests in Madison, as far as I can see, they makes absolutely no attempt to identify where this other footage with the palm trees in the background is from, or to differentiate it from the actual footage from Madison.
The effect is to make them appear current and directly related to what's happening in Madison, but there's no date, no location, and absolutely no context whatsoever. Of course, they don't flat out say, "These video clips are all from protests in Madison," but they're presenting them in such a way that it's implied. I think that's dishonest and unprofessional for a new organization even though it's not outright lying.
Sure, they're vague about it all, talking about how the union organizers are busing people in from out of town, but it seems to me the implication here is clear—that what they're talking about (i.e., the protests in Madison) and what's being shown (i.e., angry protesters) is directly related.
If those were clips of people who were bused to Wisconsin from another state, or sympathy protesters in another state, they should have labelled it as such. But they didn't, and I think it's obvious why—to make the pro-union side look more extreme than they really are in order to match Tobin's 'personal experience.'
Now Tobin may or may not have experienced harassment, but we're not shown any of that footage. Instead, all we see is what appears to be a bunch of unruly protesters in a completely different and unnamed city. That's not fair and balanced, in my book; it's biased and deceptive.
fair and balanced, my ass!
I don't know what Fox is, but I can tell you what it's not, a real news organization. Fox is the American equivalent of Pravda. It's the mouthpiece of the conservative right. It's propaganda. I'll give you just one recent example. On February 28, a reporter from Fox News was filling in Bill O'Reilly on what's going on in Madison, Wisconsin, and in the process, they were showing clips that the average person would logically assume was from the Madison rally/protest:
The clips show a lot of angry and violent people, basically implying that the pro-union protesters in Madison were just running amok. But if you look closely in the background, you can see palm tree. Guess what? They don't have palm trees in Madison. That clip wasn't from the Madison rally. It's just another attempt by Fox to spin the truth. I know this is old news by now, but it still pisses me off, especially when I hear people defending Fox's innocent use of file footage and saying things like, "I've never had a union job, and I don't think we need unions to be treated fairly in the workplace."
Right, like Fox just happened to pick a clip of what appears to be a bunch of rowdy union protesters without any underlying motivation whatsoever, like, say, trying to make the protesters look bad. Mhm, I'm sure it was just a coincidence. And you might not have ever been in a union, but many of the things we now enjoy in the workplace are directly due in part to union struggles: the 8 hour day, the 40 hour work week, child labour laws, sick pay, vacation pay, safety regulations, etc. Take away the unions and people's right to collectively bargain, and there will be little to stop those gains from being eroded away by capital.
What many people don't seem to understand is that the main purpose of things like unions is to protect workers, who usually have little means to protect themselves. Our economic system is designed to protect private property rights, and those who possess the means of production (i.e., property) have the most legal protection and leverage in the marketplace. (In fact, at the beginning, only white, male property owners were allowed to vote due to property requirements imposed by most states. It wasn't until the Jacksonian Era that these were removed.)
Workers' power, on the other hand, lies in their numbers, and without something like unions to help effectively organize workers, they have little leverage in the marketplace, being resigned to selling their labour for whatever the employer is willing to pay and under whatever conditions the employer sets. Unions simply allow workers to collectively bargain with the employer, with one voice, instead of individually, when they're at their weakest.
That said, I'm not a big fan of all organized labour, and I think that many unions have become just as corrupt and greedy as any board of directors. But that's no excuse to try and take away their legally protected rights and bargaining power, or to try and insinuate they're all just a bunch of rowdy extortionists, as Fox seems to have been doing since the pro-union and pro-worker protests against Gov. Walker and his plan to plans to strip state workers of their collective bargaining rights started.
The clips show a lot of angry and violent people, basically implying that the pro-union protesters in Madison were just running amok. But if you look closely in the background, you can see palm tree. Guess what? They don't have palm trees in Madison. That clip wasn't from the Madison rally. It's just another attempt by Fox to spin the truth. I know this is old news by now, but it still pisses me off, especially when I hear people defending Fox's innocent use of file footage and saying things like, "I've never had a union job, and I don't think we need unions to be treated fairly in the workplace."
Right, like Fox just happened to pick a clip of what appears to be a bunch of rowdy union protesters without any underlying motivation whatsoever, like, say, trying to make the protesters look bad. Mhm, I'm sure it was just a coincidence. And you might not have ever been in a union, but many of the things we now enjoy in the workplace are directly due in part to union struggles: the 8 hour day, the 40 hour work week, child labour laws, sick pay, vacation pay, safety regulations, etc. Take away the unions and people's right to collectively bargain, and there will be little to stop those gains from being eroded away by capital.
What many people don't seem to understand is that the main purpose of things like unions is to protect workers, who usually have little means to protect themselves. Our economic system is designed to protect private property rights, and those who possess the means of production (i.e., property) have the most legal protection and leverage in the marketplace. (In fact, at the beginning, only white, male property owners were allowed to vote due to property requirements imposed by most states. It wasn't until the Jacksonian Era that these were removed.)
Workers' power, on the other hand, lies in their numbers, and without something like unions to help effectively organize workers, they have little leverage in the marketplace, being resigned to selling their labour for whatever the employer is willing to pay and under whatever conditions the employer sets. Unions simply allow workers to collectively bargain with the employer, with one voice, instead of individually, when they're at their weakest.
That said, I'm not a big fan of all organized labour, and I think that many unions have become just as corrupt and greedy as any board of directors. But that's no excuse to try and take away their legally protected rights and bargaining power, or to try and insinuate they're all just a bunch of rowdy extortionists, as Fox seems to have been doing since the pro-union and pro-worker protests against Gov. Walker and his plan to plans to strip state workers of their collective bargaining rights started.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
when i think about the d, it's bittersweet
I was born and raised in Detroit. I lived downtown for the first thirteen years of my life, up until my family was forced to move when they closed down our apartment building. I went to Burton International (what's now the Burton Theatre) from 1st to 8th grade, and probably would've attended Cass Tech if we hadn't moved to Warren. But even after moving, I continued to hang out and work there before finally leaving Michigan in 2004. My last job was downtown, right across the street from where our old building used to be, in fact. So when I think about 'Detroit,' that's the Detroit I usually think about.
From my point of view, there are good and bad things about Detroit, and I still think about it every now and then. Sometimes fondly, but often with sadness. Let's be honest, as far as cities go, Detroit is in pretty bad shape and has been for decades. Sure, New Orleans isn't doing that great, but they got hit by a hurricane. Detroit's 'natural disaster' was decades of mismanagement, corruption, urban sprawl, and building its economic base on a single industry, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing. Crime and poverty seem to be a perpetual problem, as well as drug abuse. And when I was growing up, I was often exposed to some of the more unpleasant aspects of Detroit, events and memories that have helped give me a fairly negative view of the city over all.
When people talk about how great the city is, I still think about those deserted city streets in the 80s, before the two stadiums were built; my aunt's house near Trumbull, a neighborhood full of drugs and poverty; the endless sea of abandoned houses that were often torched on Devil's Night. I know all of Detroit isn't like that, and things are changing, but it's still hard to forget.
Maybe it's just me, but I even found the atmosphere oppressing. I never noticed it until I left, but when I finally did, it just felt so bleak in comparison. I visited New York, then travelled across the country to eventually settle in Oregon. After experiencing more of the US, I was finally able to compare Detroit to other cities like New York, Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, etc., and while all of them had their good and bad points, none of them had the same level of decay or the same oppressive atmosphere as Detroit. Even the people seemed different, happier, friendlier. I'd always heard about how mean people in New York were, but I felt more comfortable there as a stranger than I ever did in my own hometown. And going out west, I felt even more at ease.
I've often wonder why this is, and I sometimes think that it's because these cities are livelier and thriving. I've also noticed there doesn't seem to be the same level of animosity between these cities and their surrounding suburbs like there is in Detroit. There's a lot of hatred in Detroit, and from what I've heard, it's been that way for a long time, especially after the riots in '67. The racism and bigotry of that time has been left to fester, and I don't think Detroit has been able to come together as a real community because of it. I think that's changing, but Detroit still has a long way to go before it's finally healed from those old wounds.
Truth be told, I find myself agreeing with critics of Detroit most of the time because I, too, think it's a bit of a shithole. I think it's your experiences of a place that ultimately colour your perception of it, and growing up in the heart of downtown, with its desolate streets, and around some of its seedier parts (my aunt's neighborhood near Trumbull immediately comes to mind), I can't help picturing it any other way. For me, Detroit was a big and lonely place that was slowly dying right before my very eyes.
Nevertheless, things weren't all bad (and probably not as bad as I'm making them sound). I still like to remember the good times I had there, especially all the awesome people I knew (and still know). I make it a point to visit my friends and family at least once a year, and deep down, I'm proud to be from Detroit, especially because it has such a badass reputation. Detroit is a tough place. It's made putting up with hardships in other cities a lot easier, that's for sure. When people in Portland complain about the weather or how terrible they think Portland is, it just makes me laugh and appreciate how much a place like this has to offer compared to Detroit (except when it comes to sports teams).
And while I have some pretty harsh opinions about Detroit, I don't hate the city, and I really hope that Detroiters can turn it around. It's an uphill battle, for sure, but I think they can do if they put their hearts into it. I know it won't be easy, though. Due to a combination of things like outsourcing, foreign competition, and little else for the economy to fall back on, there's not as many good paying jobs as there used to be; and with no real public transportation system to speak of, just trying to find a decent job can be a struggle in and of itself. There also needs to be a lot of outside investment, which is hard to get when you don't have much to offer right up front. People just need to be willing to take a chance on Detroit again.
Still, Detroit has a lot to offer, I can't deny that. It's home to great people, wonderful architecture, incredible music, and an amazingly rich history. Downtown is starting to come back to life, and I've heard they're doing wonders with the riverfront.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm starting to feel a little nostalgic, so maybe it wasn't such a bad place after all. I still remember catching my first fish at Belle Isle (a tiny rainbow trout). I still buy Vernors whenever I'm sick (it cures everything). I still sport my Tigers hat, and I find myself rooting for the Lions even though they're arguably the worst team in football. I even like watching Detroit 1-8-7 just so that I can see some familiar places. I guess when it comes down to it, I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Detroit. It'll always be that old flame I never quite got over.
From my point of view, there are good and bad things about Detroit, and I still think about it every now and then. Sometimes fondly, but often with sadness. Let's be honest, as far as cities go, Detroit is in pretty bad shape and has been for decades. Sure, New Orleans isn't doing that great, but they got hit by a hurricane. Detroit's 'natural disaster' was decades of mismanagement, corruption, urban sprawl, and building its economic base on a single industry, motor vehicle and parts manufacturing. Crime and poverty seem to be a perpetual problem, as well as drug abuse. And when I was growing up, I was often exposed to some of the more unpleasant aspects of Detroit, events and memories that have helped give me a fairly negative view of the city over all.
When people talk about how great the city is, I still think about those deserted city streets in the 80s, before the two stadiums were built; my aunt's house near Trumbull, a neighborhood full of drugs and poverty; the endless sea of abandoned houses that were often torched on Devil's Night. I know all of Detroit isn't like that, and things are changing, but it's still hard to forget.
Maybe it's just me, but I even found the atmosphere oppressing. I never noticed it until I left, but when I finally did, it just felt so bleak in comparison. I visited New York, then travelled across the country to eventually settle in Oregon. After experiencing more of the US, I was finally able to compare Detroit to other cities like New York, Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, etc., and while all of them had their good and bad points, none of them had the same level of decay or the same oppressive atmosphere as Detroit. Even the people seemed different, happier, friendlier. I'd always heard about how mean people in New York were, but I felt more comfortable there as a stranger than I ever did in my own hometown. And going out west, I felt even more at ease.
I've often wonder why this is, and I sometimes think that it's because these cities are livelier and thriving. I've also noticed there doesn't seem to be the same level of animosity between these cities and their surrounding suburbs like there is in Detroit. There's a lot of hatred in Detroit, and from what I've heard, it's been that way for a long time, especially after the riots in '67. The racism and bigotry of that time has been left to fester, and I don't think Detroit has been able to come together as a real community because of it. I think that's changing, but Detroit still has a long way to go before it's finally healed from those old wounds.
Truth be told, I find myself agreeing with critics of Detroit most of the time because I, too, think it's a bit of a shithole. I think it's your experiences of a place that ultimately colour your perception of it, and growing up in the heart of downtown, with its desolate streets, and around some of its seedier parts (my aunt's neighborhood near Trumbull immediately comes to mind), I can't help picturing it any other way. For me, Detroit was a big and lonely place that was slowly dying right before my very eyes.
Nevertheless, things weren't all bad (and probably not as bad as I'm making them sound). I still like to remember the good times I had there, especially all the awesome people I knew (and still know). I make it a point to visit my friends and family at least once a year, and deep down, I'm proud to be from Detroit, especially because it has such a badass reputation. Detroit is a tough place. It's made putting up with hardships in other cities a lot easier, that's for sure. When people in Portland complain about the weather or how terrible they think Portland is, it just makes me laugh and appreciate how much a place like this has to offer compared to Detroit (except when it comes to sports teams).
And while I have some pretty harsh opinions about Detroit, I don't hate the city, and I really hope that Detroiters can turn it around. It's an uphill battle, for sure, but I think they can do if they put their hearts into it. I know it won't be easy, though. Due to a combination of things like outsourcing, foreign competition, and little else for the economy to fall back on, there's not as many good paying jobs as there used to be; and with no real public transportation system to speak of, just trying to find a decent job can be a struggle in and of itself. There also needs to be a lot of outside investment, which is hard to get when you don't have much to offer right up front. People just need to be willing to take a chance on Detroit again.
Still, Detroit has a lot to offer, I can't deny that. It's home to great people, wonderful architecture, incredible music, and an amazingly rich history. Downtown is starting to come back to life, and I've heard they're doing wonders with the riverfront.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm starting to feel a little nostalgic, so maybe it wasn't such a bad place after all. I still remember catching my first fish at Belle Isle (a tiny rainbow trout). I still buy Vernors whenever I'm sick (it cures everything). I still sport my Tigers hat, and I find myself rooting for the Lions even though they're arguably the worst team in football. I even like watching Detroit 1-8-7 just so that I can see some familiar places. I guess when it comes down to it, I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Detroit. It'll always be that old flame I never quite got over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)