"I used to stand for something, now I'm on my hands and knees."  

- Trent Reznor

back  1- Me, Myself & I  2-Politics  3-Art  4-Race  5-Consumerism  6-Children  7-Media & Society V  8-General  9-Paranormal  next

     What is this garbage?  Why is this a phenomenon?    If someone is that desperate to see some common joe make an ass of themselves, borrow a surveillance tape from Wal-Mart.  Is there not enough bad music and embarrassing events that offer karaoke to drunken 7-11 clerks already? And who are these people calling in their votes?   Are they destined to be an idol by regurgitating either lame pop songs or out of date seventies re-mixes?  Am I actually tone deaf?   Because many of these people are terrible singers. Is the media frenzy with actual news stories so worn out or uneventful, that they now have to create drama? 

     I think there is something un-nerving in reality TV to sit and watch other people make fools of themselves.  It's a parade of the lowest form.  And now there's even a MOVIE!  Did "From Justin to Kelly" do well?  Because I missed it in the theater.  Maybe it's just me, but I would rather stuff angry hamsters in my ears than waste an hour or two or four a week with this crap.  Reality TV is based on the play of a viewers emotions while watching people commit shameful acts.  If people around me behaved this way, would I put up with it?  Nope, so why watch?  It is well known that many of these events are edited or staged to appear even more "thrilling" than they really are, but I thought this was reality?  Whose reality is this?  Not mine.

     I am sick and tired of the media mishandling stories, dumbing them down or twisting the facts. OJ did it.  There is no random Satanic Cult that murdered Laci Peterson in Modesto California.  Weapons of Mass Destruction- Al-Quieda... fear of people who can't even afford the 25 cents a week to send their children to school.  Oh, Ossama is our enemy...but also has a family tie to the Bushes.   Who can believe anything anymore after so many half truths and outright lies.  Hey Mr. Clinton...a blowjob is SEX.  We never needed to buy Duct tape and create "safe" rooms during the Iraq war.  Hell,  WE sold them the only biological-chemical weapons they ever had in the first place!  Level orange, yellow, green, mauve...am I in danger or just be bombarded with irrational fear to keep me compliant?  John Edward "crosses over" and talks to the dead.  On Animal Planet they have a lady who talks to dead pets.  Really?  Can she tell me where Lady, my childhood dog buried my Pete Rose autographed baseball?  Psychics are fake.  The mind may offer evidence of being capable of more in the future- but not a single soul on earth has harnessed abilities beyond thought as yet evidenced. 

     Speaking of thought: does anyone really care or need to know who the 50 most beautiful people are in the world according to People magazine?  Do I really give a shit that Brittney Spears pays thousands for a private jet to fetch her coffee each week?  Or which celebrity is married, then divorced, then married, and then divorced...you get the idea.  All this garbage cuts out the important news, which is now reduced to a one sentence sound byte  squeezed in between the commercials.  Cure to cancer...Captain Morgan Rum Tumblers...thousands starving in Mozambique...KFC !  Do I need branding on everything I own?  Are we people or just consumers? 

     "Market value" is a term that should never be used in reference to human beings, even in the workplace.  Who cares anymore after so much fluff?  It's turning my brain to mush, and also making me angry.  It's all about FEAR, and telling you what you NEED to OWN in order to be accepted.  Taoist philosophy asks:  Fame or integrity, which is more important?  Money or happiness, which is more  valuable?  Success or failure, which is more destructive?

(update 5/07)

     Our media just continues to decline.  I see stories on that retarded waste of humanity Paris Hilton every single day, but rarely on any average person that spends their life doing good for others.  I was nauseated by the never ending death coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and the revolving question of who the father was of her baby on Fox and MSNBC- who cares?  What did she EVER do for anyone?  Do I need to remind all those tuned in that she pretended to bonk a 90+ year old man when she was a stripper to gain access to millions of dollars?  ew. 

     The Virginia Tech tragedy was covered with never ending (and confusing) footage of the murderous nutjob, every network analyst was looking to decipher the endless clips of him brandishing weapons with a scowl for the viewers.  Duh, that's exactly what he wanted.  He was ignored in life, and momentarily famous in death...for what?! Good work NBC.  I am happy that the parents and survivors banded together to boycott your shows.  But rarely a story of the nazi holocaust surviving professor Liviu Librescu  who used his 75 year old body to block the door while his students escaped out a window as the killer tried to force his way in.  He was murdered too (ironically on Holocaust Rememberance day), but he did not have any controversial video for the media to present on a loop tape for ratings...so he was mostly ignored.

      Here is a tip for the media...stop the fake claim of senseless tragedy.  If we really want it to end, then produce a few SERIOUS stories on gun control.  We need to stop allowing every average kook access to piles of guns and ammo...unless the media is intentionally avoiding that type of controversy, but that would take away the supposed neutrality of media now wouldn't it?  This all boils down to another Chubb Rock quote: It's humanity without human beings.  If news is negative garbage all the time, what effect does that have on our collective social psyche? 

(update #2 6/08)

  A local TV news channel (WHAM TV-13…again...curse them!) did a story on the neighborhood where this driveway text was created here in Rochester.  They mentioned how the "community" was concerned that a group home constituted a business, and therefore could not be in a neighborhood.  They also mentioned that the neighbors were concerned about the excessive traffic safety from staff, and the danger it presents to the street.  The town supervisor sided with the neighbors, and suggested another site in the community.  The story then ends with an explanation that a group home has the right to move in, and the community can appeal to the State- but will likely lose.  Here is what they failed to mention in this generic story:

A) They carefully photographed the house from a low turned angle to avoid what was written on the driveway (see photographs)

2 days earlier.

B) In fact, they never mentioned the driveway at all.

C) They failed to mention that staff shifts are 10 hours, which means that you may have a car coming and going every 10 hours with 1 or 2 more (or less) in that timeframe.  Does anyone live on a street that does NOT have cars coming and going in a 10 hour window?  I have cars coming and going every 10 minutes on my street.

D) A "business"...since when is a group home a business?  How many people on that street have a home office?  It's a NON-PROFIT.  It is an organization STARTED by parents of disabled kids who could not get any quality services.

E) The group home, the organization, and the disabled individuals are the bad guys in this story for forcing the neighbors to deal with  

them.  *sigh* It's those pesky civil rights again that allow equality and freedom. 

F) That town supervisor (who it turns out I know...I am so disappointed in him) failed to mention that the "neighborhood" just happens

to be a very wealthy area  for that town.  Wouldn’t want to piss off the money and property values there.

G) …and the worst aspect of the story:  That one of the parents of one of the guys slated to move in was interviewed (and at the   

community meeting) and explained he just wanted his son (who is high functioning and capable) to have a chance to achieve his dream 

and live on his own...isn't that a dream that we all want when we get older?

Now I have another rant on the word retarded here on my site (See below 8/06)- but that is about semantics and proper use of the word.  The "retards" (defined as those that slow down societies growth) are NOT the individuals that would move into the home, the retards are the ones who wrote that on the driveway.  The real retards are the bigots making this hard on everyone.  Too bad the organization had the legality and bought the house anyway.  The media can inform, but it can also be a cancer to our better side.

     This is based on a visual survey while mall grazing.  While this is done in humor, I am not just poking fun at poverty. I am also noting that a series of poor life choices (and life is choice) leads to very observable outcomes.  I observed one point over and over, that money makes people more attractive (not exactly ground-breaking).  How did this idea come about?  I found myself at 3 different area malls within a very short period of time.  I prefer not to identify the malls, nor do I feel in any way superior through this observation (in fact, it made me depressed). 

Mall "X"

     Is a somewhat run down mall in a medium to low income area.  It looks like the last real update occurred in the mid 1970's, with a weed farm commonly breaking up the parking lot area.  The people shopping there are knock off sweat-suit and pop-trend types. I  imagined living styles as multi-family trailers from the masses at this mall.    Language is at best reaching at a junior high school level, and peppered with multiple curses in a shouted voice.  There were many cases of the extreme individual.  Those few people who are not in any way near fashionable, and do not care what anyone thinks about what they wear, how they look, or what they are talking about.  Overall, visiting the dentist is not a major life concern, apparently Pork Rinds and Hostess cupcakes have assumed the priority.  Wild displays of jewelry and really-really bad tatoos are too common, as are low riders and fat bellies stuffed into ridiculously tight jeans.  The popular stores may be identified as Spencers or Footlocker, and the people are usually un-attractive and in a foul mood.

Mall "Y"

     Is losing it's luster with a late 80's look.  The people shopping there are also upscale pop-trend (if that is a possibility?) types, but with  American Eagle and a few Abercrombies thrown into the fashion mix.  Language is youthful high school, but with fewer curses scattered throughout. Overall, The age grouping is a bit younger.  This group is often witnessed as scrambling to buy whatever cell phone accessory their friends have on display from the center mall kiosks.  Wild displays of jewelry are uncommon, but the need to be an individual by sporting the tribal-arm band or small-of-the-back-smudgy-butterfly tatoos remain a consistent dying to fit-in social trapping.   There were too many examples of the mob (or pack) mentality.  Abundant examples of yelling to each other (to be noticed) occurred throughout my experience.  Things are purchased and utilized in packs, and often shared.  The popular stores may range from American Eagle to Electronics Boutique.  The people are inconsistently attractive, but still pleasant.  Mall Y tends to attract a larger number of senior citizens, who use the early hours to exercise by walking the mall with confused facial expressions.  I can't say that they are lost, but they certainly look that way.

Mall "Z"

     Has been recently updated, with a borderline celebrity attending the grand opening or appearing at one of the events on the weekend.  The people shopping there are also pop-trend types, but most often sporting Abercrombie or Gap clothing as the trend.  A knockoff fashion wearing individual may sneak in now and then, but they are usually met with stares and whispers.  Individuality is not a high priority, and apparently neither is civility towards anyone working at the mall.  Language is college or business directed, and it seemed as if every third person had a Starbucks coffee (even I felt the urge to get one). Overall, The age grouping is a youth and family oriented, and shopping is nonchalant with multiple purchases until their hands were full.  The need to be an individual by displaying tatoos is often hidden until bending over to pick up one of the many purchases (at that point a college indiscretion shows on the small of the back, or ankle).  The popular stores may be identified as Hollister or Gap Kids.  People are most often attractive, with oft displayed expendable incomes.

     My conclusion was that money makes people more attractive, but less of an individual and noticeably less nice.  Money visits the dentist, has a better sense of health and body, has more leisure time, less anxieties, abundant disposable incomes, and a greater command in controlling their 4 letter words, as well the volume of their voice.  But money also ignores civility, honest human connections and social awareness.

 Re-tard \ri-'tard\ verb: to hold back, delay the progress of, slow, slacken, detain   

     I am finding more and more words that have dropped out of everyday conversation, or are no longer in use as originally intended.  Case in point the word "retarded".   When I was younger, the word retarded was used in reference to an individual who had mental inefficiencies.  Often it was in combination with the term mentally, as in mentally retarded.  Through my years working in mental health, this term came to be frowned upon, and then politically incorrect.  In it's place came a truckload of psychiatric diagnostic terms, but that left the word retarded in word purgatory.  I think it's time to re-cycle that word.  To bring it back into acceptable use in reference to people and things.  Not as a reference to those who are living with developmental disabilities (that would be using the word improperly), but in reference to those that are supposedly properly formed- but acting like idiots.  Basically it's using the word as intended, but now in reference to the correct  people.  It may also be used in reference to an item that makes no sense.  I use it as a reference to something that's not quite right, most often a popular culture item.  Examples: Dora the explorer is retarded or Dora the explorer is for retards. I know kids respond to it, but who makes a cartoon that plays like a cheap videogame?  Paris Hilton is a retard.  So is Tyra Banks.  Ann Coulter is a retard that likes to spew retarded hate style speech (She's really just afraid of what she doesn't understand, and craving attention- no matter how she can get it...which reduces her hate speech to all she has left to get that attention...and that is retarded).  The movie Bewitched is for retards. American Idol is retarded.  Not paying attention to your children (or putting a "job" before your family) is retarded.  Believing conspiracy theories like NASA never landing on the moon, or the DaVinci code is retarded.  Paying for a psychic to give you life advice is retarded, and therefore if you do that- you are a retard.  My word refers to those that truly slow us down as a society, but I am fully aware of the luggage that it carries.

(August 2006) Hipsters,  Fashion and "Where you at?"

     In a somewhat recent job interview, I was asked about controlling classroom behavior.  In particular for those male students that "wear their baseball hats crooked".  I didn't see this as a behavior issue, but the person asking the question was in their late 50's- so I thought it best to avoid the argument.  How you wear a hat, or clothes is up to an individual, but I have always held the idea that clothes send a message, and some messages shouldn't be sent. When I was younger, this particular way of wearing a baseball hat had an ingrained connotation.  Anyone wearing a hat that way was one of two things.  Either they were a developmentally disabled man-child, or they were a cute toddler.  Whenever I see this fashion trend, I still see this mental image.  For me, I see that fashion trend as inherently embarrassing to the wearer.  So to anyone who does it- I'm sure that people over the age of 30 are quietly laughing as they picture you standing at a lemonade stand with a backwards "D" yelling LEMONADE! with a lisp.  Is that what you want in order to fit in?  Go for it, I don't consider that a classroom disruption, it's entertainment.  This just makes a shallow hipster who doesn't know how to think as an individual.  It leads to a good career in marketing.  Speaking of marketing...

     Boost Mobile has an ad campaign that is geared to steal the oh-so-hip disposable income from American youth.  The catch phrase is "where you at?" (written out in graffiti like scrawl). I can usually ignore when these phrases make it into everyday life, but when you hear it said into a cell phones 20 times a day, you wonder if anyone realizes how ignorant that sounds?  Would you go to McDonalds and sing the jingle?  Do you think that drinking beer or wearing a lot of body spray will make you popular?  It won't, it'll make you a musky-pungent-drunk.  That phrase "where u at?" automatically states that you do not understand how to speak like an adult.  My 2 year old uses better speaking grammar, and he can't pronounce words beginning with F or S.  I think it's better to talk like a person, instead of a commercial.  Or you can base all of your social communication on ideas that a group of savvy marketers have cooked up to bilk you out of even more money.

Oh, and Please...pull up your damn pants.  I get it- it's a prison thing, it's a youth thing.   If only for the fact that you may someday reproduce to prolong our culture and society, understand that sometimes what's on the surface highlights what's beneath..  By wearing your pants so low that you leave your ass hanging out, the only things that you are telling people is that you need attention to your status symbol Calvin Klein/Hilfiger underwear, and  that you are determined to work at minimum wage for life because you don't realize when a TREND looks "retarded" (see above). 

(July 2007) The movie 300, Crutches, and Content

One step at a time…

The Digital Crutch:
     Take a look at the artist Dave McKean.  Arguably, one of the great illustrators of our time using a mix of traditional and digital materials.  A good example is the 1989 batman book: Arkham Asylum.  This book is commonplace in a good bookstore.  He mixes an intense hands on art (painting and drawing) with photo collage and Photoshop.  Jump to his current work and you can see a progression from hands on and digital to pure digital art.  He begins to replace it with more photography, and more Photoshop.  Make no mistake about it, he is one of the best digital artists out there...BECAUSE of his hands-on knowledge.  But he has abandoned that aspect for almost all Photoshop, and that leaves his work with a detached feeling.  You can see that within one of his children's books, the day I swapped my dad for two goldfish, and the wolves in the walls.  Pages are present with these gorgeous loose ink drawings interwoven with color and texture from Photoshop, and then there are pages that are 100% Photoshop...they lack a human touch.  Anytime a new material enters the art scene it is overused.  Then dozens of imitators come in and make the innovators have to move in ways that may not produce the best work. It happened with airbrush in the 80's, and Photoshop in the mid 90's.  Everyone gets swept up with the eye candy in the form, and forgets to consider the content of the art.  As I have stated before, art that reaches a higher intellectual status considers both areas- otherwise it is just a craft.

Form over Content:

     The movie 300 was a visual feast.  That translates to beautiful form.  The content of 300 was not only poorly historically exaggerated, but provided numerous examples of derogatory viewpoints to various groups.  For a “true” story, historical inaccuracy and inflammatory propaganda translates to poor content.  If you grade out on these two elements, 300 fails.  It’s gorgeous, but that is not enough (for we all know that good looking and stupid does not make a well rounded person).  If you claim it to be BASED on a true story, keep to the truth.  There were no giants, ogres, or monsters in the Persian army.  The machismo content was over the top with boatloads of  bare chested oily men,  and scattered homophobic quips.  And the subtle homophobia is odd considering that the oily men are barely attired,  akin to a hot gay photo shoot.  But, this is from the creator of Sin City...which suffers from the same teen boy mentality of gender relationships.  Another film that looks gorgeous, but delivers stupid.  I am sure the Spartans did not deliver Arnold-esque one liners with each new kill, and the juxtaposition of hard rock music with the battle scenes made me feel like I was watching MTV.  Portraying the Spartan women as pure and just, and the Persian women as whores, is a tool of propaganda during a time that the current Spartans (white cultures: America) are deep in tensions with with Persians (non-white cultures: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan).  The Persians are represented exclusively by numerous non-white cultures, while the Spartans look like they are from Detroit.  The timing of this movie is what sparked my thinking.  This is not a new tool of the US war machine.  It was heavily used in World War II in regards to Japan, the Civil Rights movement, and during expansion against Native Americans.  Making your enemy less than human is a way to sanitize the atrocity of war.  A common building block for war is fear.  Fear of what you do not know and understand.

Truth and Exaggeration:

      “Why should history stand in the way of a good story?” (-Frank Miller, the creator of 300).  I had the same uneasy feeling with the DaVinci Code.  If you base it on what is supposed to be truth, and you market it as historically revealing- then it should be accurate.  Otherwise, why use history? Or why not just use history as inspiration, and not mention that it is based on a true account?   If you are changing the facts, then it’s used to sell the story- NOT to report the story.  This is a marketing ploy.  It is constantly used as a way to fill the seats.  Other examples of “true” stories that are hardly true: Pearl Harbor, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wolf Creek, JFK, American Haunting, Saving Private Ryan, Mississippi Burning, Evita, and too many more to list (I am sure that every reader can add one).  Creating history to manufacture Hollywood dollars is in itself a genre.  There are many modern books re-evaluating our school history texts.  They detail the huge amounts of history that has been ignored, or altered in order to further the agenda of a ruling class.  300 smacks of this.  It takes a revered Persian leader  (Xerxes), disrobes him of common period attire (velvet robes), and attires him in what amounts to a scantily clad S&M wardrobe.  This revered Persian figure is a descendent of Darius, who created what may have been the first declaration of human rights.  Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. was portrayed in an Iranian film in ass-less leather chaps.  How would America react?  The original intent of the graphic novel was to use history to create a story.  It skips huge elements of the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC.).  I am a life-long fan of comics and graphic novels, and I believe that this is where the great stories are being told.  But, I also know that a graphic novel has to be exciting, and therefore is not a historical text.  A graphic novel reaches a particular audience, and I don’t believe it could have been foreseen that this book would be made into a movie.  BUT- once that step was decided, they should have shorn up the history.  It would not have been a detracting element, it would have been a positive inclusion. For history only stands in the way of a good story when that story is faulty.

Summing up:

     I never intended this rant to be this long, but this is not a topic to stumble into with a one-line sound byte.   First, art is two-fold.  In order to apply the tag of “art” then it must address a higher understanding of both  Form and Content.  Second, hidden agendas may exist in both an obvious and transparent form.  The United States (as of the writing of this rant in July 2007) has had serious tensions with Iran (and other countries in the area) for many years.  In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, we have recently pondered war with Iran (and North Korea).  This is an insult to the ancient culture of Persia, which is now Iran.  Insulting a country that you have tensions with is a first aggressive step towards war.  And again, the timing and content of this film is very curious.  The United States associates itself as a modern descendent of the philosophy of Rome and Greece.  Our architecture (particularly political buildings) are a direct result of this influence.   Therefore many US viewers subconsciously identify with the Spartans.  300 was released during a war with Iraq (close relative), a police state in Afghanistan (nearby), talk of war with Iran (Persia), and high tension with North Korea (we need a time-out, don't we?)  As I stated above, war is easier if you are not fighting human beings.  And finally, history and fiction should not be mixed.  Fiction can be influenced by history, but to alter history to suit a story only creates a subjective agenda.  History must attempt to be objective.  Subjective history changes the way a viewer thinks about a topic.  If that topic is supposedly truth based, then the result of the “story” is complicity deceitful to those in the seats.

(Update July 2008)

Alan Moore is wary of the fact that “Watchmen” is being helmed by “300” director Zach Snyder. “I've not seen any recent comic book films, but I didn't particularly like the book 300. I had a lot of problems with it, and everything I heard or saw about the film tended to increase [those problems] rather than reduce them: [that] it was racist, it was homophobic, and above all it was sublimely stupid.”  (Excerpt from Ain't it Cool News July 2008 Writer Alan Moore, arguably one of the greatest writers in Graphic Novel history)

(August 2007)  A life reduced to S**T

     I am greatly disturbed today.  I saw a news story on a local channel (WHAM 13- ABC) about a woman who was shot to death yesterday morning.  She was walking down a street when a man on a bike rode up, robbed her, and shot her in the chest.  My sick feeling began with: she was killed for what?  Maybe $20.00?  But , it got worse.  At the end of the story, they make a clear note that she had a MySpace page.  I felt a need to know who this was that passed.  In looking Shalonda up ( I won’t give her last name out of respect), I felt like I was punched in the gut.  Her page opened with a wickedly profane warning littered with F bombs to anyone spamming her, and her blogs were not much better.  I only opened up her most recent blog which was a long rant in extremely graphic detail of her most recent large bowel movement (S**T) before she went on stage (she played bass for a band).  I felt sick.  A young life lost, barely mentioned in the news; and all that remained as a legacy was an internet profile detailing a profound bowel movement.   I come across these types of personal pages on MySpace/Facebook all the time.  I am sure that her life was more than this internet litter, but I am also sure that I was not the only one who looked her up to find this footnote.  I think that WHAM-TV was 100% wrong to highlight this page on MySpace, any quality editor would have seen that it was inappropriate content for this story.  All day I was hung up on a life lesson.  If it (it being life) ended today, what would be left behind? What contributions have been made, or are being made to society?  We don't know when it will end, so what will our final act be?  Will it be a life in detail, or deformed?

(September 2008)  Lying is the new truth

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -Joseph Goebels.

      Goebels was the head of the propaganda unit of the Nazi party during Hitler's rise to power.  During that time he perfected a process of  public lying as propaganda.  Create a lie, stick to the message, and tell the lie so many times that it becomes part of the actual story.  The lie becomes so intertwined with the story that it becomes part of the truth.  The media dependent public sees and hears that lie in print, tv, radio, and public addresses- and they begin to accept the lie.  As example I'll use an old propaganda tool:  if you are at war, or need to begin a war with another country- you must have the support of the public.  The common public would never support war if they believed the other side was also average human beings, or if people were maimed and murdered.  The lie begins with fervent nationalism with pulpit style speeches and parades against the enemy and for the nation.  Then  imagery of the "other" people take on a tone of savagery, or less than human.  Throw in one large lie showing how evil they are (the Nazis continually blamed the Jews for their terrible economy after World War I). "They" are no longer referred to as people, but become enemies and "they/them/its", therefore removing the human element of the coming atrocity.  The same can be done for the catastrophic human result of war.  The rule is to not show the bodies coming home, there is even a US law during a time of conflict prohibiting the photography of soldier caskets being removed from planes.  The caskets equate to disturbing numbers for a viewer.

     In terms of countries, it is common practice to: 1) distort the reality  2) make the enemy less than human  3) create a large lie to showcase their evil and create fear  4) ramp up nationalism and fervent pride 5) push your agenda, and marginalize anyone who opposes the agenda.  In terms of individuals it is common to:  1) deny the situation harming your persona  2) create an alternate explanation/or sound byte (even if it is unbelievable)  3) stick to the lie/repeat it over and over  4) act indignant to anyone suggesting otherwise. 

     It is a continued practice today.  The message becomes more important than the reality.  It worked for the Nazis with the Jews, and it is working for the US against the generalized "terrorist/axis of evil" threat.  It's propaganda at it's finest, and it is how propaganda works and disseminates through our communication to move the masses in particular (even immoral) directions.  Lying in the media, and sticking to the lie is now a common occurrence.  It is so common that we barely notice the abundance of lies we filter out each day.  In short, lying is the new truth.

     Spinning 2008- I am certainly uncertain, at least I think I am.  It's the political season, which means that lately I have had to work very hard to navigate my way through lies being strewn about in the media as if nobody really cared about the truth in the first place.  I have witnessed the political lies from the Republican party trying to deceive their way into office.  John McCain falls behind in the polls and begins to lay out Barak Obama with a hate campaign.  After a week (10/6 to 10/10/08) of calling Obama a "terrorist", and crowd reactions ranging from "kill him" to carrying racial puppets, McCain then dropped a doozy on 10/13/08 saying that "He has been called the same at Obama rallies."  Or how about the one at the first presidential debate?  McCain used the example of a $3 million dollar DNA bear study as terrible government wasteful spending, except McCain himself voted for the proposal.  Sarah Palin (2008 Republican VP candidate) supported the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere at a cost of $398 million dollars.  She campaigned for it...publicly- until it became a splashy media story of government waste during the time of Katrina (2006).  Now that she has joined John McCain as a "maverick" looking to change government, she repeatedly tells the tale of how she said NO to this project, that she was the outsider rejecting government waste.  The irony is that 2 years ago John McCain himself singled out this Alaskan bridge as a specific form of government waste.  Videos and photos and transcripts have been made public of her 2005 support of the project, and yet she still continues to tell the tale of being a "maverick" and "outsider", and against financial waste.  Her term as Mayor of Wasilla Alaska began with a $1 million dollar budget deficit, she left that post $25 million dollars in debt.  My favorite lie is the argument that she has foreign diplomatic experience because she can see Russia from Alaska.  On Friday October 10th 2008, the day that the "Troopergate" report was released, Sarah Palin said this gem "I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing…any hint of any kind of unethical activity there.”  Um...What?!  Page 8, Finding Number One of the report says: "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."  George Orwell warned of this type of lying in his classic big brother book "1984"- no means yes, war means peace, black means white.  As she has stated, she is "sticking to the message"- how very Goebels of her.

      I am not suicidal, I am just eating chicken wings.  Early this week, there was a sports story concerning the Tennessee Titans quarterback Vince Young.  The story began on Monday when he apparently stormed away from his family home with a gun.  The family contacted the team and the coach Jeff Fischer, who then contacted the police.  Later that night and the next day the story became one of "misinterpretation" and "exaggeration".  The story that was released to the media was that when Vince left he was not upset, was not threatening suicide, and his agent who was "notified by phone" was able to find him at a male friends home eating chicken wings and in "good spirits".  The gun was unloaded and in his car, and the Titans (and his agent) insisted the media blew it all out of proportion.  The only thing was that no one counted on the police reports going public.  As the report states, Vince Young's agent was present when he stormed out, and gave a car chase at up 90 mph.  He had threatened suicide multiple times to both his therapist and the police.  When he was eventually located, he was at a females home, and was questioned by police before being released to his therapist.  Sports agents have the tool of lying by the foot of their beds like a dog.  The key to this lie is that obviously...duh...no one who is eating chicken wings could possibly be suicidal.

     I'm feeling lighter.  Beyonce is not really that black did you know that?  Lighter sells better.  L'Oreal and her representatives vehemently insisted that they did not lighten her for the ads.  I have a feeling they may have tweaked the contrast a bit in photoshop.  I am not judging the choice, simply noting the lie. Because...y'know, there's not like any pictures of her anywhere on the web for comparison right?

     That's my wife's steroid- not mine.  The whole Bush "Weapons of  Mass Destruction" lie was to gain reasoning for the war in Iraq, but why would Roger Clemens lie about steroids?  His partner and fellow pitcher already admitted to it, his trainer admitted to it, he even threw his wife under the bus for using HGH for the inset photography sitting.  He had to have known that he would be caught in the lie- maybe he was unable to admit to the truth because his ego and his public persona had become one.  He feared what would happen if his public persona took a negative hit.  Fear had Roger take his lie (and his indignant disgust that anyone would dare think he did it) to every media outlet that would have him.  He would even take it to congressional hearings, but as the old saying goes: it takes more work and more lies to keep a lie going, than it does to tell the truth.    

     What is all this lying doing to our society?   I find myself not believing anything- why would I?  This is the way to combat the propaganda- to suspend belief until I see proof.  Proof that what looks bad is not true.  This year I have endured the usual gambit of political lies during an election season, Paris Hilton vowing to save the world and denying that she ever used drugs (oops, forgot about those pics), Fidel Castro is sick...healthy...sick...healthy...resigning, We are winning in Iraq...kind of, Madonna had nothing to do with Alex Rodriguez and is not getting a divorce...but is getting a divorce and dating A-Rod (who also by the way per 2004 interview- never took steroids, but did via 2009 press conference), and a countless number of celebrity trends of being publicly exposed for some character flaw (drugs, sex, racism)- and choosing to go to rehab to repent.  Good god! Now you see why I wrote a journal titled "Lying IS the new truth" ...yikes, I need a flow chart to keep up with all this nonsense.

     I find myself pausing to critically analyze what is being said, and what is to be gained by the lie.  Many times there is no real gain from the lie, it is simply a case of personal public relations and ego.    The truth is one and done, the lie is forever rolling over upon itself.  I was just thinking: When did this all come of age?  While agents and PR people have long hidden truth away, it did not really explode onto the everyday scene until the 80's.  I think the greed of that period, and the overly conscious attention to how we appear over who we are made this approach to the lie commonplace.  Maybe we should twist around a famous Martin Luther King quote:  Judge us not by the content of our character, but by the quality of our carefully manufactured public persona as we appear in our media tours. 

(October 2008)  Quietly yelling about a subject

     I like movies.  I watch a lot of movies, in a variety of genres.  Sometimes I like the drama, or feel like laughing or being scared.  Most of the time I am drawn to the story, and like reading a good book I like the depth and a fresh take on important subject matters.  Movies; like art, have a multitude of ways in which to speak to a viewer.  Art may use color, or line, or shape, or lighting.  Movies may use sound, or the lack of sound.  You might expect a movie that has mass killing as a subject to include a lot of sound, that is what movies tend to do with guns...right?

     A few years back I saw a movie directed by Gus Van Sant called "Elephant" (2003).  I saw it on HBO, only catching the last 30 or so minutes.  I was completely glued to what I was watching.  It was obviously a take on the Columbine High School shooting, but without the Disney flash, or the Lifetime generic drama.  What really caught me was how quiet this movie was for what was happening on the screen.  Lots of big empty hallways, lots of real school sounds.  You were constantly right behind the characters in the halls, and this made the violence that much more real and harsh.  I actively hunted this movie down, and was not disappointed.  What I enjoyed was the story focusing on the event and introduction of characters.  The message was made by not pandering to the grief, or the obvious guns- that-kill point.  It was not made by soap opera writing, nor was it made with an out of touch with youth feel.  It was matter of fact- no happy ending, no demeaning nature.  Like it or not, without a major change to our laws and society- this story is here to stay.  The movie simply presented the subject, and left the rest up to the mindset watching.  Sparse dialog, true alienated youth characters, squeaky hallways, and short startling pops of gunfire punctuate what I think is one of the best message movies on the outbreak of school and youth violence that began in the 1990's.  There is that old adage that when everyone avoids an important subject that is off limits, that we all ignore the gorilla in the room.  Elephant presents a harsh subject of youth alienation and mass violence without ever becoming pretentious or preachy.  That gorilla seems to be ignored, but is really the focus all along.

     The other day I rented "Out of the Blue" (2006).  The true story of a 22 hour mass killing spree in Aramoana New Zealand that occurred in 1990.  Somehow I had come across an article ranting about how excellent this movie was, and how accurately it portrayed the event as it really happened.  I have a major pet peeve about "based on actual event" movies- as they tend to exaggerate and outright lie. Just slapping that "based on actual events" label on a movie tends to sell tickets, but has the ability to drive me nuts.  See, I am the type to go look up the facts of the events, and then cuss out the studio for the lie.  One of the worst offenders that I have seen was "Wolf Creek".  How is it "based on TRUE events" if the killer was never caught, and those that he murdered were never found?  The entire movie is a re-cap of the "TRUE events" of the torture and murder of backpackers in the Australian outback.  How is that story possible?  No killer, no witnesses, and no bodies...where's the story coming from?  So, you can see that my enthusiasm was not exactly keyed up for a "based on actual events movie".   I was so wrong, I loved this movie.  It is eerily similar to Elephant in the way that it avoids judgment and utilizes a lack of sound to make a point.  There are no wild character studies, or an intrusive music score.  It feels like you are actually present in this small quiet town on a boring day when something goes very wrong.  You are able to hear the ocean, and the breeze, and the distant pops of rapid gunfire. Unlike the glorified Hollywood close ups of action movie violence, the violence feels very real and very dangerous.  The story stays very accurate in representing the confusion of the event, but also in capturing the feel of the town and the people.  And like Elephant, it offers no over the top clean and neat tidy package explanation.  In fact, it offers no explanation- it is what it is, a modern day cultural question.

    They say that to get people to listen, instead of shouting- try whispering.  The message offered here in these 2 films is not a lecture, it is a question.  What makes them special (for me) is that instead of telling me what to think, it is asking me what I already think, and what I will do about that ideology.  There is no glorification, or simplification.  It is not violence for shock, or violence for gore.  There are no overly in depth character studies to emotionally draw you in, nor are they big budget blockbusters loaded with stars.  But both of these films have a strong understanding of the reality of their violent subject matter.  They offer up an overdone subject to a viewer in a respectful manner, and they both say more with a whisper than any big budget Hollywood tale that is yelling for attention. 

(July 2009) The annoyance of language infection

We are all crack heads living in a crack house

     I am going to be all over the place in this journal, because as of late- I am annoyed by language.  I was at the grocery store a few nights ago, and had to endure a young woman lose her temper at another customer.  An elderly lady was annoyed at the young woman in front of her with about 15 items in the 7 items or less line, and as old ladies tend to do- she began loudly hemming and hawing about the number of items.  One situation that should always be avoided is to mix the elderly and youth in conflict.  Both tend to think that they are more deserving of respect, and therefore tend to say and do things without caring for how it appears to others.  The young woman was annoyed but calm, and told the old lady to go ahead of her.  Now what set the young woman off was the elderly lady continuing to complain- and the young woman having no sense of civility after losing her temper, well- that triggered the old lady.  The young woman began screaming about everything, and all of it was peppered with F-bombs and other colorful words.  And in turn, the elderly lady starting pointing her finger in the young woman's face while telling her what she thought of her.  A lighted match to a gas pump it was...it went on and on, with no care as to who was in the store- kids and all.  Separating them had little effect, I went through line and left with both of them still going at it from separate ends of the checkout lanes. 

     My wife and I have had this happen a lot recently.  People having no care in the world for the language they use.  It's not a matter of being puritan, it's a matter of vulgarity due to ignorance.  It's the old rule of not knowing any better words to express yourself.  I suppose I am old school.  I believe that the words that I use in public are heard by all, and I would like to convey respect and dignity.  Dignity is NEVER overrated.  I guess I am also annoyed because I am not on the bandwagon of cell phones and texting.  See I told you that I was going to be all over the place?  First and foremost, because I believe texting is raping our language and making the mundane seem worthwhile.  Second because we just saw a movie (a mildly attended matinee) where I counted no less than 7 phones texting throughout the movie- and that was only in front of me.  What is so important?  I use social websites myself, but I don't need to text in or post a status like this: "Where u at?...Going to mall BRB...shower then out...enjoying R&R...taking kids to soccer...eating and then naptime...You crazy ROTFLMAO..."  Who cares?  Language is to convey information, when language tells you nothing it becomes a virus. And texting makes that virus appear like an idiot is writing the code. When we stop talking, we can start communicating.

     I saw a movie called "Pontypool" (Based on the book "Pontypool changes everything").  Very interesting movie.  Without giving it all away, it is a zombie movie (with very few zombies) that begins with a virus spread in the language.  Word of mouth causes an obsessive looping effect in the brain.  What if a virus were spread by language?  Mass media would be that guy in the subway hacking up a lung.

     Media is the new methamphetamine.  The drug that is everywhere you go 24/7.  We are all crack heads living in a crack house.  A story breaks and then it immediately goes out across the web.  People begin reacting while the event is occurring- before comprehending what is unfolding.  We are reacting to a crafted language over content.  The media blurb is put out there like someone coughing out an illness, floating in the air, breathed in by many.  A reaction is swift, and emotional response floats from person to person- oftentimes the message is changing, becoming more than how it first began.  It is like a real life "telephone game".  Remember that exercise?  You sit in a big circle.  One person whispers a descriptive story in the ear of the person next to them, and so on and so on- until it gets to the last person.  By then the story has completely exchanged details and content.  The media gets a story, it hits blogs, texts, social outlets, and word of mouth (via cell phone)- and begins all over again to keep the rating going.  The virus multiplies until we are all infected.  I am being assaulted everywhere I go by language conveying information I don't want or need- it is like being force fed speed.  Be it f-bombs from some self important teen throwing a hissy fit, or the 10 facebook status postings telling me the smallest details of a boring life.  I did not ask to become outraged by some celebrity train wreck on every magazine cover while waiting to pay for my groceries.  I try to look away when I am having dinner in a restaurant loaded with 30 flat screens, or the breaking news on every website I visit.  At first I thought that Pontypool was intriguing, but then I realized that it was not foretelling the future, it was chronicling the past.

(September 2009) Conspiracy theory is a mental illness inside a ball of string

     I have this weird attraction to conspiracy theory, but not because I believe in it.   Everyone has one subject that they believe there may more to the story than is let on from the source.  For me, I think that there may have been more to the 2000/2004 election stories than most people are aware of.  Long voting lines in the democratic inner cities, suddenly moved election areas, lost and ineligible ballots.  I probably want to believe this more than I truly think there was a conspiracy because it makes the Bush presidency digestible.  Making Bush out to be an inter-dimensional lizard ruler cheating an election allowed me to laugh at the depression of the reality.  Everyone has one subject that requires assistance in comprehending,  but the conspiracy theorists that make me scratch my head are the ones who have dozens upon dozens of dark theories going all at once.  David Icke is the current king on the conspiracy hill.  To him, everything is a conspiracy- so much so, that there is no way for me to even begin listing his world views.  And this is why I say that conspiracy theory is a mental illness- reality becomes wrapped around itself like a giant ball of string.  An alternative reality is created to explain the reality we live in, which in turn is denied as fake and created by those wishing to deceive us of the "true" reality.  A riddle within a riddle within a riddle. 

     The problem with this is (as my last journal entry above also mentions) that the media is on high speed, and that also sends lies and half truths out into our consciousness.  Misinformation (conspiracy theorists would add intentional disinformation) tidbits get into the hands of those pushing political agendas.  Not always dark agendas, just pushing what best benefits themselves.  And that point is key: we are a greedy materialistic society, we want what we want- and we want to give nothing for it in return.  For instance:  The fall 2009 health care reform from the Obama administration.  There is a lot of debate on specifics, but I am going to keep it simple as a-b-c.  a) The current healthcare system in the US needs reform, it's a broken mess of a trainwreck.  b) Old people don't like change. c) Democrats and Republicans want to be the heroes in solving this.  Everyone in the fight is taking bits and pieces and adding fear and disinformation to make their point.  It's really not that complex...to sum up what was posted all over the web in September 2009 "no one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick."  The truth lies somewhere in the middle of the ball of string, but you have to get through many layers, and figure out what is true for yourself- but you can't get anywhere without getting all tangled up.  I have seen many news stories where conspiracy theory is included in with the health care debate.  "Socialist reform takes away your choices", "Youth indoctrinated into reform agenda", "Lizard people posing as doctors steal your DNA." (ok, I made that last one up...maybe).  The thing about the "disinformation" is that is is not a new tool.  It is as old as organized politics and public relations. It was used by the US for support against the Nazis in World War II, against the Jews in 1930's Germany, against the Native Americans in settling America, Against gay marriage, Civil Rights, Protestants and Catholics, feminism, slavery, welfare...and so on.  Conspiracy in its base form is paranoia and fear on steroids - and then microwaved to the point in which it creates an alternate reality.  The truth is in there somewhere, or at least twisted overcooked parts of it are in there.

     David Icke's theories are funny.  No one believes there are lizard people running our country (or are there?).  We can laugh at his theory.  But when the conspiracy has a media platform and makes false political claims that effect us all- we should be concerned.  Someone who has the microphone, and proposes lies as truth is mentally ill.  And I equate the use of media in spreading lies that effect us all to a terrorist act.  What is the difference between someone flying a plane into a building killing 3,000 people and believing that Allah will reward him with virgins in paradise for his act against infidels, and the radio jockey rallying an angry response from national listeners with blatant lies and misinformation that may cost thousands of lives in a broken health care system simply because they do not like a black president aligned with a rival political party?  A plane or a microphone, which is more dangerous?

(October 2009) The time theory problem of social networking

     For anyone born after 1979, you may have a hard time relating to this.  I originally started using social networks like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and many more sites as a way of promoting my artwork.  I put up a brief bio and a portfolio, and never really planned on going back.   I started before Facebook exploded and became the site everyone now uses to find (and stalk) everyone else.  After a while, I started using my Facebook status as a way of working out some conceptual art ideas.

     Now, people are popping up that I have not seen in 20 years or more, and I see them not as I remember them- but old.  For whatever life reason, we lost touch and I had no intention of seeing many of them- maybe ever again.  Now I see them, and they see me.  I see their wrinkles, baldness, kids, weight gain, 80’s hairstyles, denim jackets, and lists of bad ass 70’s music bands that they still love.  I see their high school pictures, big hair, concert photos, camping trips and I feel like I am eternally in someone's living room being forced to watch slides of the family vacation.  They were preserved a certain a way (as was I), and now that is tainted.  I knew them in high school or college, and some even in grade school.  And now they are back, and back in a really odd way.   

     Social Networks border on becoming that clichéd high school football star who fails at life and spends every night in the local bar reliving the glory days.  Sometimes they even come at me with “Do you remember…” and add in an obscure or long lost memory.  One in particular had a well preserved memory of us making a sixth grade yearbook cover drawing together- and then posted the picture for me to see.  He talked of his admiration for my art, and felt bad about us never completing it together (he was out sick for a week or so).  Admiration?  He still feels bad...really?  There is a gap there of nearly 30 years!  My mind does not comprehend that gap too well, and certainly there is little to no reason in picking up those lost pieces.  That’s the love/hate of Facebook and other social websites.  To touch base and joke with people you know is fun, but to be found and sometimes even hounded by those deep in the past is not fun.  In fact, it resembles drunk dialing at 3am.  I can’t blame anyone for that, it happens.  But, I can’t be rude and not add them as a friend.  However, I do not exactly want to re-connect with someone I barely knew in sixth grade or have not seen in 20 years.  If I met them new today, I may not even recognize them or know them.  I might meet them anew, and maybe go forward with a new friendship.  But now that meeting has the baggage from 10-20-30 years ago-  and that just does not work.  I have found that leaving my past in the past is the best way to go forward- what's done is done.  To be honest, it keeps me young by leaning forward instead of backward.  But social networks seem to break a basic time continuum rule of the universe- the idea that time is linear.  With social networks far too many people are trying to turn back, or outright break the clock.

back   1- Me, Myself & I  2-Politics  3-Art   4-Race  5-Consumerism  6-Children  7-Media & Society V  8-General  9-Paranormal   next