Are we addicted to rioting? ...My thoughts

So here we are in day 4 of the challenge and I’m feeling proud of myself. Four commentaries in four days, it’s truly amazing...

Today’s topic: Are we addicted to rioting? Is a response to an article written by my good friend and fellow musician Ryan Harvey. I recommend reading his article here. The premise of the article is to explore the tactics of individuals in the modern anarchist movement using the metaphor of addiction. I’m sitting in a club (The Red Square) in Albany, listening to loud, but good music. I’m about to perform in an hour or so. As a result I will not be as in depth as Ryan.
First of all let’s get one thing clear. I am an anarchist. Yes I believe in lawlessness and bloody mayhem(Just kidding). I believe that people don’t need governments (i.e. The State) in order to have a flourishing functional society. I believe we can have an egalitarian society by utilizing a direct democracy model that encourages communities to create autonomous collectives that can collaborate to develop practices to serve the needs of the people. And require that all individuals wear black bandannas across their faces (kidding).

OK back to Ryan’s article. In answer to his question, yes we are addicted to rioting. Not all of us of course. Some of us are social rioters and others like me are in recovery. I really do think that there are a good number of people that are consumed by the rush. I know for me, going to A16 (The IMF and World Bank Protests in Washington DC, April 16, 2000) was amazing. Feeling the power of large numbers taking to the streets was certainly intoxicating. It was extremely exciting. I remember feeling like the revolution was upon us. I’ve only felt that type of energy a few times in my life and it’s extremely powerful. Are many of us in search of the next Seattle? I think so. I do not blame people for that. I would not be opposed to another Seattle but Ryan’s point is not that it is bad to wish for upheaval in the streets, or that it is morally wrong to fuck some sh** up. He wants to know if we are being productive.

If we are talking about the young anarchist/anti-capitalist movement that hits the streets during big wig gatherings like the g20, than I would say: no we don't seem to be extremely productive lately. It’s a valid point that we have to examine. At the same time it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go. We just need to first answer the questions Ryan is asking like:
"What is your goal?"
"Will it make you stronger?"
"Will it hurt your organizing efforts?"
"What do you need to do to achieve your goal?"

Questions like this can’t be asked enough. And when we ask critical questions of ourselves we will be have more successful outcomes. Now is as good a time as any.

There is one point of contention I have with Ryan’s article. I texted him saying that I think he over-generalized us anarchists. I was once a part of an anarchist collective that was provocative, passionate and extremely problematic. I became disillusioned and frustrated with the organization and would often find myself being extraordinarily critical. Most of my critiques were accurate but there was one problem. I was analyzing the privileged, racist patriarchal paradigm of our organization and the effects of white supremacy on our efforts and overlooked the positive contributions of our collective. When overlooking the brighter aspects of our work, it’s not a surprise that the contributions of women were the most under appreciated. Anarchist orgs across the country have positive vital contributions made by women that often get lost in the problematic actions of a larger whole. The same is true of Anarchist People of Color.

I think Ryan inadvertently doesn't clarify these distinctions. Luckily for us his music rarely makes this type of omission. I don’t believe that this discredits his overall point. It’s just important that all of us acknowledge the manner in which patriarchy and white privilege are responsible for the problematic tendencies of our movement.

And that's it for now. (I'm about to go on stage and have a blast.)

The Erosion of our Civil Liberties

Alright so yesterday I said that I was getting up to date on current events. Well I'm going to backslide a little. Not to say that "The Erosion of Our Civil Liberties" is not a current event. It's just that this was a hot topic few years back when we were being ruled by the Bush/Cheney combo. At the time it was always something I wanted to write about. But now I'm a famous blogger with tens of people reading my rants. So I guess there is no time like the present. I know I'm going backwards and the hope was that I would be going forward. Don't worry I still plan to reach my goal of transporting myself at least five days in the future when I'm done with this challenge.

One of the most powerful choruses heard during the Bush Years was "they are destroying our civil liberties". I have to be honest, that statement always irked me. It's not that I believe that George or Richard were protectors of any liberties that we may have or had. I just always wondered this, when was the time period that we had all of these liberties that you are pissed to be losing? Or more importantly who are you talking about when you say "we"?

Now first off let me make a few things clear, laws like the USA Patriot Act and programs like the NSA wiretapping program certainly work to destroy some of the basic "so called" freedoms that we may posses in this country. And I understand that someone can examine some of the laws written in the US Constitution and infer that people should maintain certain rights that would be respected by the US Government. But here's what I'm saying. Has there ever been a time where enough people were treated in a manner that suggests that there was something close to universal recognition of certain inalienable rights?

When you say things like "they are eroding our civil rights?", you are implying that "we" had rights previously. This brings us back to my earlier question, who are you talking about when you say "we"? Are you only talking about American Citizens? Or are you talking about illegal immigrants or foreign citizens that have been directly impacted by US imperialism? Because you would be hard pressed to find many Guatemalan Peasants, that lived through the US sponsored genocide that killed 200,000 people, that would claim to have felt any civil liberties during this time. When you say "we" do you mean white Americans? Because you certainly can't be referring to Black Americans that lived through Jim Crow or Slavery. You can't be talking about Emmit Till. And you can't be talking about Japanese Americans that were interned in concentration camps during WWII. You can't be talking about Native Americans that were forced to walk the trail of tears, or inhale small pox infested blankets, or live in forced poverty on US reservations. Are you talking about white men? Because you certainly couldn't be talking about the women that were seen as property of their husbands and didn't have the right to vote for the first 100+ years of this nation's history and still can't get equal pay for equal work. Are you talking about straight Americans? Because you can't be gay and serve in the military. ...Not that the military is a good thing.

I know I just went off. Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that your government has never universally granted the "so called" rights of the constitution to everyone. So don't say "our" when talking about the erosion of civil liberties. For two reasons. One maybe you never had the liberties that you think you had. Or two maybe you're one of the only ones that did...

Romantic Comedies

So awhile back I wrote that I hold the belief that When Harry Met Sally is the best Romantic Comedy ever. I said I was willing to entertain other possibilities. I have. And I have determined that When Harry Met Sally is hands down the best Romantic Comedy ever period, end of story.

I put Boomerang at number two and Say Anything at number three. I will accept disagreement with those two but I have found no evidence that anything comes close to Harry and Sally.

Yes I know this is not a commentary. I'm working on it. Geez.

Kanye, Taylor and Beyonce

So one of the cool things about this 30 commentaries in 30 days thing, (note if you don't know what I'm talking about go down a few entries to the one entitled: Challenge) is that I suppose I will eventually catch up to what's happening in the world today. My partner Laura points out that I'm way behind the times with the Joe Wilson Commentary. Well, I will have to say that I am guilty as charged. I mean the Joe Wilson Story was like so 20 days ago. The good news is now I'm talking about Kanye, Taylor and Beyonce and I'm like only 17 days behind. So I think I'm catching up. At this pace by the time I'm done with the challenge, I'll be 5 days in the future. I guess this is a win for everybody.

Anyway. So unless you live under a rock at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, you know about Kanye's interruption of Taylor's Swift's acceptance speech for best female video. I know what you're thinking, what the hell is significant politically about this. The answer... Not a whole lot. But two points.

Point A: Despite the fact that Kanye was rude to a nineteen year old woman on national television, he was right. No he wasn't right for being rude, but people, Taylor Swift's Video is awful. I mean terrible. If you haven't seen it, Taylor plays the role of an "unattractive girl" trying to get the attention of a boy that's in love with a cheerleader. So young girls can grow up thinking: I should look like a skinny cheerleader and if I don't there is no hope for me because Taylor Swift looks like a skinny cheerleader and some hot stud thinks she's ugly because she wears glasses.

Point B: Beyonce's video for Single Ladies is truly brilliant. If you haven't seen it, watch it on YouTube. Than watch Mexican Breakfast by famous choreographer Bob Fosse and you will find that Single Ladies is a tribute to Fosse and his wife Gwen Verdon, arguably the best dancer on Broadway in the 50's and 60's. So what this says to me is that at least there are some people creating legitimate art even while simultaneously re-inforcing the patriarchal paradigm of marriage and relationships. I know that doesn't say a whole lot but it's the VMA's what do you expect?

So what's the conclusion? Beats me. I just figured I would share a few thoughts on this subject. I will have to call myself out and say that this commentary doesn't have a whole lot of Tofu to it. But it's only my second one of thirty, so get off my back!

Joe Wilson and why I didn't vote for Obama

So If you read my previous post, you'll see that I've challenged myself to write 30 commentaries in 30 days. So here is my first one...

Joe Wilson. Y'all know who he is. He's the dude that interrupted Barack Obama at his congressional address on Health Care. He screamed out YOU LIE!! when Obama mentioned that his health care plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants. The ironic part about this event is that it highlights why I didn't vote for Obama. That's right a right-wing conservative was able to illustrate the key reason in why I didn't vote for Barack.

No. It's not because I think that the right wing has the answers or that Joe Wilson is a symbol of down home good values. And actually it's not because I feel that illegal immigrants should be covered by the same coverage as me, although I certainly do feel that way. It's because of the outrage expressed by some republicans at Wilson's outburst. When John McCain was asked what he thought of Wilson's antics, McCain called them "unacceptable" and stated that he should "apologize". Several other republicans reacted similarly as well as many congressional Dem's.

So I got to thinking what's the big deal. I surmise one of two things from Wilson's insistence that Obama is pulling our leg. One, he is a xenophobe that truly believes that the president is lying and that his insurance plan will cover illegal immigrants, resulting in mass migrations from every brown country on the planet followed by fire and brimstone, and therefore Wilson is the one soul standing between us and the Apocalypse. Or two, he is a xenophobe that knows the president is not lying but is convinced his constituents will believe that Obama's insurance plan will cover illegal immigrants, resulting in mass migrations from every brown country on the planet followed by fire and brimstone, and therefore they will see Wilson as the one soul standing between us and the Apocalypse. I assume that the answer is number two. Anyway what's the big deal with him vocalizing his opinion?

I mean after all how many of us would have loved the opportunity to scream at the top of our lungs towards GW Bush, something like "Iraqi Baby Killer" or "You're not even from Texas" or "Fuck Dick Cheney". I did a little bit of lazy person research into the matter and according to the Chicago Tribune, no one has ever screamed at the president in a joint session before. That said in 1856 Democratic Rep. Preston Brooks beat Sen. Charles Sumner with a heavy cane in the Senate Chamber, but I digress. Again I ask what is the big deal? I mean don't we want to yell sometimes at the people we strongly disagree with? Would I be upset if someone yelled "you lie" when Bush declared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? No.

So here is the big deal: respect for the presidency. Opposition parties aren't suppose to disrespect the president out of respect for the office. But I believe that is code language for "we will be in that office one day." And that's the point. No matter what liberal, commie, propaganda, Obama is pushing, remember that we will be back and than we can spread our christian conservative propaganda all we want, wink-wink.

And that's why I didn't vote for Obama. Because I believe that the Democrats and Republicans have an agreement that allows for each party to continue to play tug-o-war with the power structure in a manner that ensures that the two of them will always be in control. In the end this means that we will once again have a republican president. Look at the names of potential republican candidates out there and ask yourself if you're excited. And than ask yourself if Obama has done anything to challenge the two-party system and the basic foundational principles that keep the republican/democratic partnership in control. Finally take note of the fact that Joe Wilson has raised $2 million since his tantrum in congress and his opponent Rob Miller has raised $1.5 million and ask yourself: Is there a better way to spend $3.5 million in our efforts to improve society? Or is it really more productive to continue to pour money and time into this never ending seesaw?

The challenge...

So last night I saw Julie and Julia. If you haven't seen it I recommend it. Meryl Streep is ridiculously good as Julia Child. If you've never heard about the movie it's about Julie Powell and her journey through Julia Childs masterpiece, Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Basically Julie Powell is feeling lost and decides to cook every recipe in the book in one year and blog about it everyday. That's right 365 days and 500 some recipes. This was the defining moment of Julie's career and now she is a professional writer and has a movie made about her.

So it reminded me about what a slacker blogger I am. I write a blog and than say I'm going to write another one and than I slack off until I feel embarrassed that I've slacked and finally I overcome the embarrassment and I write another entry. And this happens every month. So now, thanks to Julie Powell, I'm committing to writing 30 commentaries in 30 days. That's right I said it. I'm not talking about poem's of the week or best of romantic comedies. I'm talking political commentaries that are filled with meaty subjects or at least tofu and tempeh. So here I go. Hold me accountable people.

And ohh yeah to make the challenge even more interesting. I will be on tour beginning October 16th. It is extremely difficult for those of us without an IPhone to blog when you are spending 8 hours or more in a car followed by an evening performance. But I'm out of control what can I say....

I know Julie, you blogged for a year straight with barely an interruption and cooked like 500 recipe's to boot, but quit raining on my parade. Anyway I'm shooting for realistic attainable goals.

Here goes.

Romantic Comedies

So here is the question. What is the best Romantic Comedy of All time? I know this may not be considered an essential discussion in terms of radical politics but I think this question needs to be answered. In my mind there really is only one answer:

When Harry met Sally

But several people have attempted to refute this claim. None of these individuals can make as passionate claim as I can. But nonetheless I will allow some time for discourse on this subject before we crown When Harry Met Sally.

And for the record my argument is simple: When Harry Met Sally will destroy all other romantic comedies in any form of battle known to human kind. Period.

So here I some of the other contenders our there:

Boomerang (one of my favorites)
Barefoot in the Park
Say Anything
High Fidelity (John Cusack is the real deal)
Four Weddings and a Funeral (I haven't seen it yet but just acquired it, legally of course)

And that's about all I've got. Feel free to give your suggestions.

Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan rule the world!