Contents of L:
ćLetās
Have A Brief Conversationä:
This is Richās way of saying he would like you to visit for the day.
I think most people who are honest will admit to having the following
experience: ćUpon first viewing the blanks I was certain that
they: 1) lived in the most backward of manners; or 2) were hateful and
dangerous; or 3) beared all responsibility for their sorry lot; or 4) were
nothing like me. But, upon actually meeting the blanks, I was able to
separate my myth from their reality.ä Feel free to substitute any group of
outsiders as your blank. Live among those foreign to you and learn
something about their world view - and thereby broaden your own. Sadly, our
society increasingly avoids such contacts, retreating in a variety of ways to
small communities which reflect similarity and scorn difference. The most
obvious examples (i.e. gated communities for retirees who like golf) obscure the
multiple means we employ to cordon ourselves off. As long as we insist upon
isolating ourselves, misunderstanding will continue to plague us. At the hands
of such a trend we all suffer.
With this short essay I intend to illustrate one of the many predicaments
facing the progressive-minded self-styled activist. It relates to what weighs in
as our most authentic vote- the boycott. It is important to remember of the
boycott, that while it is our most authentic vote (see Boycott for
Democracy) it is not the Īend-allā solution that many punks think
it is. It is true, though, that the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are the
same ones who bought him his house by supporting his radio show and hence its
right-wing political agenda. If we just sit before the stereo speakers cursing
his fundamentalist idiocy, Rush will never hear us. What Rush hears are his
ratings- to which even the most displeased listener may be counted a
constituent. It is similar with books and television shows that must have our
attention and patronage if we are to be enraged by them. These are in the
majority of things for sale which need only consumer support to exist and
thoroughly permeate American culture. If we find the ideas in a book that we
bought to be violently objectionable- we still have bought the book; and this,
as they say, is Īthe bottom lineā to those making money off the ideas. And
my personal boycott of the book would be evidenced as successful if I knew not
of what it would say to me had I bought it. Unless, of course, I am rejecting it
entirely on the word of another critic- a frightening tactic indeed. Of course,
with TV and radio we can begin a personal boycott even after having listened or
watched, allowing us the opportunity to educate ourselves for our actions.
Namely, speaking against the passive patronage of the program, and refusing to
buy those products that support the programming via advertising. Being able to
cite in detail the faulty argumentation of oneās adversaries is most certainly
an invaluable capacity. My question, therefore, is the following: If a
conscientious consumer decides to irrevocably eradicate his or her support of
one of these cultural products, with what substance can he or she argue against
them? This is a difficult question. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, we can
actually be antithetical to his general opinions on a vast array of subjects
while sustaining our boycott of his radio show. How? Well, as it is with many
well-known public personalities, we are often so saturated with the information
that characterizes them that even if we didnāt want to, we would have some
particular knowledge about them. I notice that this happens all the time.
Personally, having had limited exposure to MTV (my parents got cable very late
it would seem) and the social status of corporate rock, I have maintained a
nearly categorical boycott against commercial music for the last eight years or
so. That is to say, I refuse to support commercial radio, chain music stores,
and MTV culture even peripherally. I have done and continue to do everything in
my power to cut this prevalent aspect of American culture out of my reality
tunnel like the malignant tumor that it is. Nonetheless, I sometimes realize
that I somehow know what the latest hit song sounds like, or have some knowledge
of which rock bands are in the mainstreamās light. So with my boycott in tact,
I still find myself in the orbit of this hideous cultural nucleus. The good news
is that, in this way, I always return to those general premises that I stand up
against. But this incidental learning is only an accident, and I must confess a
much more imputable contradiction within me.
I listen to Rush Limbaughās radio show for about 15 to 30 minutes per
week during the school-year. When Iām home studying, and need a lunch break, I
usually opt for him over Jenny Jones. I try not to play a record in that short
break, since this is so enjoyable to me that I find it hard to go from Die
Kreuzenās first LP back to reading philosophy; whereas the transition from
Rush Limbaugh to Immanuel Kant is always more than welcome. Sometimes, I sit
there so enraged that I need to resist smashing my stereo to bits in an
impassioned fit. But still, you might ask, whatās up with the selective
boycott? Well, I really donāt know for sure. I do know that itās much easier
for me to boycott the music industry as it were, since I am generally much less
prone and much less eager to articulate an argument against it than I am the
right-wing politics of Rush Limbaugh. With regard to music, I have a view which
is inherently political but is also so highly personalized and sensitive to the
supposedly subjective judgment of sounds. However, Limbaughās politics claim
to speak truths, and are thereby laid open for my objective scrutiny (unlike
each personās claim to Īmusical tastesā which are not usually argued to be
universally true). Since Limbaughās arguments are mostly grounded in blazingly
faulty logic, there is something progressive that I can do with them called
ćknowing themä and then, ćdeconstructing them.ä And to Limbaughās
arguments, which I do take to be representative of the current right-wing
conservative stance in America, I can form the most precise and potent
objections. (Incidentally, I use my objections to his arguments all the time
since I am surrounded by their many versions at work, with friends, in my
readings, etc.) But I am aware that this is no workable justification, since
this contradiction within the framework of my actions and principles is still
left bare for all of you to see. For about 15 to 30 minutes per week, I allow
myself to be entertained and informed by a racist and classist leader of the
right wing contingency in this country. Hence, I consciously choose to be the
very thing that, in great numbers, has attracted the advertisers who help to
keep Rush empowered.
But, while typing that out almost turns my stomach, the reality is that
we interact on a daily basis with hordes of sapiens who hold Limbaughās views
to be their own; and if you, me, and one of the horde were pushed into a dinner
table talking about Limbaughās politics, I would be our secret weapon· In
fact, I promise to be. But I refuse to explain this any further, since it is
clear that I am leaning toward the justifying of my own predicament- and perhaps
only because it would make me feel much better if I could. I only ask in
conclusion: If all sustainable changes are and always have been borne from
conflict, how can the one ignorant of X ever come to negate it? I ask this not
rhetorically, for I really would like to know the answer. How potent an argument
can you present against the nightly injustices of the nightly news programs? ·
Can you list what some of these recent injustices have been? Can you combat a
current injustice on 20/20 that has helped to shape American minds against one
of the most crucial fights in the progressive movement today? Or, have our
personal boycotts made this type of conflict Īoff limitsā? I just canāt
accept that to not know these broader injustices is ever very good for us, for
they represent what the majority of people are thinking.
In any case, there are some very real predicaments that face the
boycotting activist; predicaments where my boycott is not as obviously sound as
my reasons for refusing to buy Proctor & Gamble products. And to those of
you who have not yet lost sleep over these, I give this inconclusive gift.
Litter
- More Than Just Annoying:
Many people donāt think that litter exists in NYC. How can there be
litter in a totally unnatural place? Litter is something that exists only in
rural settings. Throwing a cigarette butt into the gutter is not an act of
littering because: a) it is not ruining the environment since it can easily be
cleaned; and b) it will easily be cleaned by the street sweeper that comes twice
a week. Itās exactly this sort of thoughtlessness that needs to be combatted.
We throw our waste into the street we are saying: a) I donāt give a
fuck about how this city looks and smells (and I believe NYC smells and looks
like shit); b) when it rains I want this litter to run into the gutters, through
the sewers and then directly into the ocean, finally ending up on my favorite
beach in the NYC metro area; and c) I totally approve of the city using millions
of tax dollars each year to pay people to clean up after me. Shouldnāt we all
have learned as children that we need to clean up after ourselves? Yet, we
decide that we need someone to pick up our little bits of trash that we canāt
be bothered with throwing out ourselves. Think about what could be done with all
the money that is spent on this service alone. Now think about all the things
that could be accomplished instead. We basically choose street sweepers over
health care everyday. Bad choice.
Beyond that, we create a need for someone to clean up after us. I donāt
want to make any definite statements but I imagine that not too many street
sweepers love their job, but there are hundreds maybe even thousands of people
employed in this fashion in the NYC metro area alone. Just like the worker at
the all night deli, Iām positive that there are some people who love the
graveyard shift but itās more than likely that itās none too convenient for
them.
This all comes down to responsibility and thoughtfulness. Can we be
responsible enough to throw our own trash away? Can we wait until tomorrow to
get that product so the owner of the store can go to bed at an hour he or she
deems reasonable? Can we think of this city, or town, or whatever, as ours, as a
place we donāt want to see littered and smelly, as a place where we donāt
want to see our neighbors, friends and relatives up all night at the deli? Can
we then take a step further and think of each town and city as someone elseās?
We donāt want to litter your streets because we respect your desires to have
clean streets and to not have to pay someone to clean them. If we do that for
you, youāll do that for us (another lesson we should have learned when we were
very young). This isnāt a difficult concept and following the theory through
with corresponding actions is not difficult either. Currently, we have a
short-term view of convenience designed only to indulge our immediate and
selfish needs. So letās inconvenience ourselves a little bit, by adopting a
long-term view of convience, so that no one has to pick up after us. Consider
all the jobs weāve created in order to accomodate our culture of convenience.
Theyāre not jobs I want to do, so how could I ask someone else to do them?
These arenāt jobs I want to pay for, so why would I create them?
The most severe loneliness, when all the books around me, the phone, my
music, the music of others, my bike, my correspondences - Iām too lonely to
touch any of them. Sometimes itās okay, I just have to wait for someone to
call or come home and then Iām all right, and sometimes thatās only a small
comfort - when you say that youāre sad for no reason, itās just there and
you can hardly move and you hardly want to, the days can be so long and if it
was winter you could put another sweater on and at least you wouldnāt feel so
transparent and maybe youād feel a little safe but itās 95 degrees out and
youāre half naked and thereās no where to hide. This has nothing to do with
locking yourself in the bedroom at a party and waiting for someone to come in
and feel sorry for you and this has nothing to do with writing sad songs or sad
poetry because you canāt pretend to be empty - thereās nothing sexy about it
- and who the fuck knows what loneliness is? But we recognize it in muscle
memory (the brain is a muscle) and emotional memory (the heart is a muscle) and
weāve been there and weāve come back and weāll be there again before too
long.
The
Losing End of Race and Real Estate:
The
news keeps talking about how great things are / since those days of recession
have gone away so far / and how the economyās performing so above par / and it
seems like everyoneās driving a brand new car but me / But Iām still
struggling as Iāve known no other way / and itās hard enough for me to find
a place to stay / where people who look like me wonāt chase me away / sadly we
forget the pathetic few who will fall prey to you / And where will I be when
this ćunwarranted exuberanceä comes to pass? / the ćunfounded euphoriaä
never came to touch those of my class / weāll catch the leanest side when
depression hits the mass / and all Iām left to think is ćprosperity, my
assä / I cannot believe this prosperity / I will not believe this prosperity.
Love:
Love is the word we choose to describe ultimate affection. Love can be
expressed in a myriad of ways, in adoration of a myriad of beings, objects,
sensations, experiences and phenomena. Telling someone else how to love
is kind of like telling that person how to perceive, for love is so
internal that it really cannot be questioned.
Sadly, Īloveā as a word has been appropriated by the popular corporaculture, which has managed to frame it along several narrow lines, Īfamilyā and Īsexā being the most prominent. As such it becomes difficult to express love along unconventional paths; we fail to recognize love which is neither familial or sexual, harboring deep suspicions of alternative love forms. I suggest that we all examine these ludicrous efforts to confine love, and obliterate all walls by expressing love as freely as we wish to.