"a sad day for the country and a sad day for the Constitution."

a sad day for the constitution indeed.

if you do not think supreme court justices are important, if you do not think the idealogy of the president who appoints a supreme court justice is important, please consider this article. (Click on header to be directed to it.)

today the court increased the ability for a state or the federal government to sieze a person's private property.

The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says that private property may be taken by the government if fair compensation is paid to the owner. But there is a second requirement: The property may be taken only if it is for "public use."
The precise issue before the Supreme Court was whether a privately owned development project amounts to a "public use" of the homeowners' former properties.

the effect of the court's ruling, is to define "public use," as that which has any public benefit. the case before the court involved a group of citizens in connecticut who were displaced, (and disenfranchised,) because by removing them, the state would be able to increase the value of land in the area and thusly, charge higher taxes. voile, increased revenue for the state is translated to mean, "public use."

it has been said that the bush family got rich via a government invocation of the eminent domain law. the same has been said about the o'malley's in los angeles, in which case thousands of people who lived in chavez ravine were displaced from what was considered a slum housing project.

(in fact, ry cooder has recently worked on an album he says was inspired by the plight of those people. read about the musical project and a bit of the history here: http://csmonitor.com/2005/0623/p11s01-almp.html )

for a real understanding of the history of public housing programs in this country, try reading this paper-it's truly a lucid account of the many factors which have affected the various decisions over the years. http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1102_hoffman.pdf

i'm concerned with the court's decision because i think this country was founded on individual rights. while i am a firm believer the public good is the greater good, and recognize decisions like these sometimes have to be made, i am concerned by the continuing shift in this country toward segregation.

the proliferation of gated communities is alarming. personally, i can't help but feel like tearing down one of those gates every time i see it. they exist on a presupposition that bad people lurk right out there somewhere and these gates may be what keeps them at bay. methinks the division created exacerbates the insecurities of those who might commit crimes to begin with.

where do we stop? when will the supreme court of this country stand up for the little guy? lately they never do and if rehnquist retires as hannity suggested yesterday, the liberals on that court are in for a constant thrashing for a while right along with the little guy.

and how is it that south pasadena has been able to stave off the 710 freeway extension all these years when connecticut can separate people from their property in the name of higher taxes? (Read about that here: http://www.nationaltrust.org/news/docs/19990603_pasadena.html )

reading and trying to understand the implications of many of the laws involved in relevant cases, i see this is an especially complex issue. but it strikes me as fundamentally bad when the government can run people off a piece of land in the name of higher taxes.

silence speaks

Human character evermore publishes itself. The most fugitive deed and word, the mere air of doing a thing, the intimated purpose, expresses character. If you act, you show character; if you sit still, if you sleep, you show it. You think, because you have spoken nothing when others spoke, and have given no opinion on the times, on the church, on slavery, on marriage, on socialism, on secret societies, on the college, on parties and persons, that your verdict is still expected with curiosity as a reserved wisdom. Far otherwise; your silence answers very loud.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

a friend of mine was so distressed by bushco's underfunding of television programming which is in the public's best interest, he just had to shoot his blog off about it.

you can read about what pissed him off here: http://www.scpr.org/news/features/2005/06/preservefunds.html
or you can read him at:
http://ceep71.blogspot.com/2005/06/screw-putsch-cpbs-war-on-balanced.html

(a quick word about the term "bushco." i borrow this from mark morford, a columnist for the san francisco chronicle who writes a sweetly sour column called 'notes and erratta,' which can be found here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/17/notes061705.DTL morford coined the term to refer to all things of george bush's administration. since bush himself, is hardly a genius divining all this evil and hostility behind the privacy of a black curtain stage left a la the wizard of oz, morford likens him to a corporation, acting on a dark agenda and in support of a set of similar values, but as a corporation with many moving parts, [i.e. cheney, rumsfeld, rice, et. al.])


it makes me cheer when a friend tackles such a heady subject. i think any subsequent debate is vital but more importantly, the individual is nourished by considering these things.

my friend's thoughts about not addressing the issues of our day leaves me cold because i think it is shameful to just walk away from issues which might upset you or which, you might find to be unjust, because you feel impotent.

my thought is: one should do what one can. one engages in intellligent discourse. that's something. any little thing is noble, but pushing against the forces which keep us from evolving is absolutely essential.

i think we have to recognize there will be only so much change in our lives. if one cannot reconcile themself with the idea that in 40 years there will still be much to be ashamed of, progress will have been impeded drastically often in the name of dividends for the few, corrupt men will still be making public decisions, etc., then you need some serious counseling.

that said, these jerks who want to cut public funding are the assholes who want to privatize everything. privatizing what should be the public's domain, what should be publicly funded, is almost always a thinly veiled grab for cash. you can bet the corrupt congressman who supports the privatization of (insert industry here-we'll go w/. . .) prisons!, is getting fat cash campaign support from the wackenhut corporation or whatever other players exists in that realm. (you can read about them here: http://www.eyeonwackenhut.com/ )

the basic idea of socialism posits that the masses should to some degree take care of the weak among us. if you are crippled, if you cannot communicate w/ the rest of us because of autism, if you are loony or criminal, (and it should be noted those who refuse to participate in capitalism are bound to end up being classified as one of these, or they will live on the street,) the socialist aspect of a society may take some responsibility for your well being. this is as obvious a sign of our inherent goodness as a species, as you can possibly identify.

(and isn't it odd that the right, so identified w/ christianity which is said to identify w/ ideals associated w/ feeding the hungry, clothing the cold, medicating the infirm, wants to privatize everything and leave these, the least among us, to fend for themselves?)

one thing bushco and many of us have gotten clearer on these past several years is the fact that controlling the airwaves gives you the best chance to control the mindwaves. propaganda is. prior to bush coming into office, i remember much rhetoric bandied about on how hollywood was corrupting the morals of our country and our children and how they needed to reach into that realm to counter the immoral liberalism springing forth. i can actually remember thinking, (good luck suckers, art is a foreign language to those of your ilk.) but alas, i was wrong in so much as they have been more creative than i gave them credit for.

yes, they've been involved in major motion pictures, but more importantly, they've continued the consolidation of the means of communication. they love rupert murdoch who speaks only the language of wealth, (or so it seems,) and they're happy to see the number of entities they have to deal w/ in trying to affect change in this realm, dwindle. rupert is easy. he already leans heavily in their direction. the corporations are pretty easy-crooked right-wing politicians have been getting scratched and scratching those backs so long you'd think they just grew an upside down hand out their hairy-ass backs.

michael powell facilitated the tearing down of longstanding laws put in place by wise men who knew an easily accessible and diverse array of broadcasters was in the public's best interest. i've noticed the christian networks are making movies, (and i mean besides mel gibson.) they're bad movies but they'll get better and as the dumbing down continues there will be a cosmic meeting in the middle ground.

i'm sure this present darkness or one of those cracky tim lahaye books will get made into a major motion picture and special effects along with evangelism will push it's profits skyward and facilitate more of them being made. . .and i'm sure it will be in the same vein as the hollywood crap of the day which is short on thought and plot but long on technical quality and mind-numbing attributes that titillate and dumb down. these things are coming, son. i have no doubt.

(note: i read 'this present darkness.' this is a piece of crap novel. those who like it, like it because it paints a fantastic picture of fantastical images and events they've imagined many times because they believe they will come to pass but when compared to the classics or even the good novels of our day, to say it pales is a vast understatement. it is rank and amateurish.) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891073906/104-6388507-4743932?v=glance

and what about that area of the gulf of mexico right off mississippi where they are going to allow oil exploration all of a sudden after decades of protecting it? (it is the home of a shitload of dolphins who may just one day rise out of the ocean and speed into outer space singing, "thanks for the fish. . .but your environment has grown increasingly toxic so, sorry, but we gotta go." douglas adams is spinning right next to ben franklin and i swear no one's got any common sense around here any more.)

and you know what, if we love our children, if we love our kind, if we know what the fuck real love is, we have to push back. we have to educate. we have to trust. the bottom line is we are not dunking women in salem anymore. we are not raping and pillaging. our crusades are just gatherings of dumbasses in tents now, or glass buildings.

and this is our lot in this world, the human condition. ours is fat w/ struggle, and it always will be. is there a caveat or a feather we can stick in our caps to lean on in the face of those who would bring the lot of us down? yeah, there is. it's called history.

history doesn't remember the george bush's in a kind light. 400 years from now his name will be a footnote, an obscure reference to a despot long gone. abraham lincoln will still be remembered.

john f kennedy, a man i learned in college, "was a terrible president who could not get anything through congress-he just didn't have the sales and people skills of say, ronald reagan,"-(this is what you get when you attend college in the san gabriel valley of southern california, at mt sac in a district gerrymandered as a means of hoodwinking voters,) will be remembered because of his ideas and because of what he said that was so important. addressing the nation on the cuban missile crisis, he said, "We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth; but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced."

big ideas make big men. bushco, (the whole lot of them,) have zero big ideas. if they are remembered at all it will be as tyrants and warmongers.

but we cannot rely on evolution. we must create it. we must be vigilant, constantly pushing against that which brings us down or represents the worst sides of man's character.

erstad

darin erstad plays baseball for the la angels.

he epitomizes what someone who specializes in a sport and plays it for big money at the highest level should be, (unfortunately, not what they are.)

erstad is no nonsense. when he holds a runner on first base, he does not talk to him as if it's two guys from the "got-rich-in-the-show club," stepping aside for a brief chat. it's all business w/ him. erstad treats the runner like he's from the other team, the one trying to beat his team so they do not make the playoffs so they do not ultimately win the world series, practically taking food out of his family's mouth. and this is as it should be.

in the last six years (or so,) erstad has changed positions more than john kerry, and like kerry, he did it for the right reasons. he did it for the good of the team, sacrificing the chance to please his agent by establishing a top dollar reputation at one position, (his natural being centerfield where his speed and daring earned him a reputation as one of the best in the game, even displacing a pretty good ballplayer in jim edmonds,) opting instead to play the game to win the game, which has involved shuffling back and forth from center to 1st base a few times.

erstad is a singles and doubles hitter. but, the key word there is hitter. he is the embodiment of that word. he hits in a lineup of utterly undisciplined hitters. vlad guerrero and garret anderson are first pitch swingers who make up for their lack of plate discipline by being great bad ball hitters. in other words, when they guess wrong, as baseball players often do, they often still do damage to hopeful pitchers.

free swinging hitters can be a dream to a pitcher. if he's on and he has some luck getting those guys out, it's a long night for the angels because his pitch count will be so low he can stay around for the late innings.

erstad takes pitches and he does it for the team. he gets many of his hits, (he is currently batting .295,) with two strikes on him. why? for the team, damnit! this is who he is.

i guess he's from fargo, north dakota. i don't really care to know much about his personal life. it's none of my business. but as a baseball fan, (and one who slung some leather in my day,) i appreciate his pro-style game.

a couple weeks ago he gave johnny estrada, (the atlanta brave's catcher,) a concussion bowling him over as he scored a run. he came in hard, saw the ball was going to beat him and that the catcher was partially blocking his path to the plate, and despite the likely pain that would ensue, he crouched forward on the dead run and layed a shoulder into estrada that produced five, square-dancing, tweety birds just over estrada's cranium. had estrada held onto the ball, erstad would have been out. the ball rolled free on contact and from the heap, erstad rose and stretched out over the fallen catcher to record the run.

why do we watch sports? to pad the ego of some guy who spent all his time playing one game in order to excel and cash in instead of reading the works of rushdie and viewing the films of the young, mexican directors, and getting a feel for all the various sports and having a head for politics and becoming a scintillating conversationalist, and understanding the light and dark sides of human nature and growing into a citizen of the world, mostly at peace except in the face of injustice, violence and intolerance?

not that all the rich jocks are dumbasses, but the majority possess a singular focus which is likely why they are able to play at the level they do. it follows then they do not have the luxury of variety, the luxury of time to explore the corporeal world of the modern man, (though surely the cash affords them abilities to see much of the physical world and really, to pursue virtually any endeavor or passion.)

i hope we merely tolerate asshole athletes. i hope we watch sports for the excitement of the contest and for the prowess on display. i think we draw parallels in our lives to the games, and we use them to escape too, or as a pastime.

like many angel fans i booed jose guillen tonight, from my living room. i booed him not for the mistake he made last year w/ the angels that caused mike scioscia to demand the organization trade him at the end of the season while they made him leave the team for the pennant drive and the playoffs. i booed him for losing his temper last night. (no other player lost their temper in any visible way.)

it is said the blue-collar worker gets paid for the sweat of his brow, while the white-collar worker gets paid to swallow the natural urges and tendencies toward aggression that humans have. this means, when someone says something you do not like or disagree with, you practice the ability to not act out, especially with violence or anger. if a person can swallow those natural urges and respond in any other way, ideally w/ reason, besting the act or word that sparked the urge to begin w/, well, the better a person is at it the better they are at white-collar work, the greater their chances of getting promoted and making money, (or, more money,) in that environment.

guillen's behavior suggests baseball is blue-collar work and surely, the players who play games sweat. but w/ compensation so high in professional sports, i think we hope the players also possess white-collar skills.

it is understandable that tensions run high-a game is a competition after all. but today's athlete is conducting himself in front of millions of fans almost nightly. comportment should be a top priority. when a player misbehaves, (in fact whenever i used to see lou piniella acting like a fool out there throwing bases around as part of a tantrum,) i think of his parents and how poorly it reflects on them. (if he grew up an orphan or something like that, he gets some slack in the form of forgiveness but only some.) otherwise? bad parents.

erstad strikes a pretty good balance. he is a fierce competitor as evidenced by his hard-nosed style of game, but he is also utterly classy. five years ago he lead the league in hits, (pre-ichiro,)-he was more of a free swinger then. now he hits for average, getting on base often for teammates to drive in while increasing pressure on opposing pitchers.

even a-rod with his sculpted image, (and similar hair,) does not compare. he is a nice guy but he sounds like a robot, (though his game is absolutely above reproach.) his answers to interview questions sound like they have tested well in demographic studies.

erstad simply avoids the limelight. if a reporter asks him a question, he tries to answer it honestly, from what i can tell. what he says does not make for flashy journalism. good for him. it's refreshing a player does not seek out the limelight and try to make commercials for some hair product or another.

every team that wins a world series in major league baseball has chemistry. a good example, (though they did not come close to winning the championship,) is last year's dodgers. that team had chemistry, which is what took them as far as they went, further than any dodger team during all the years eric karros and mike piazza were there.

last year's champs, the bosox, had johnny damon and david ortiz, (and perhaps a few others.) clutch guys who came up w/ clutch hits. manny ramirez was and is the talent on that team but these guys get manny somewhere he would be unlikely to go without them: winnersville. (in a playoff series in which the sox swept the angels, erstad had a great series but seemed like a one-man show at times.)

in 2002 the angels won it all. erstad was the guy i'm describing. what? down a couple runs in the 7th? erstad will get that key double down the line that starts the rally to win the game.

if baseball had more guys like erstad, contests would be more fiercely fought and the level of play would elevate. (there are other guys like erstad and damon and ortiz around the league too, michael young of the texas rangers comes to mind. looking at a perennial spot in the all-star game he agreed to move to shortstop when a-rod left for the big apple despite the fact he would be an unlikely candidate to ever get there going up against the likes of miguel tejada and derek jeter and the rest of the best infielders in baseball.)

these are the guys we, as fans, should hang some glory on. i'm tired of that guy who has a huge year in a contract season. some guys focus like that constantly, (adrian beltre.)

as for erstad, i don't mean to be his apologist. he's just a ballplayer, though one who is easy to respect for his talent, style and choices.

favors for favors, or, a lie by any other name. . .

from the favors for favors dept . .

it seems one of our republican congressmen from the golden state is up to business as usual. randy "duke" cunningham recently sold his house in del mar to a defense contractor for at least $700,000 more than it was worth. cunningham sits on the armed services appropriation committee. since the sell, the contractor's business, (which had been flat,) has spiked on government contracts.

but wait. there's more. (ho-hum.)

cunningham's real estate agent brokered the deal and she is a campaign contributor. this one clearly stinks.

you can read all about it here: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4441.html

but hey, i'm less concerned with the politics of the day because they'll always be there. there will always be people lying and cheating and stealing, trying to get ahead because they think it will make them happy, (which it won't,) just as there will be those who try to uncover those wrongdoings.

i'm more interested in another story involving cunningham, which made news a few years ago. at that time, cunningham was involved in bringing forth legislation that would impose the death penalty on drug kingpins. later, his son was caught smuggling 400 pounds of marijuana into the country. cunningham appeared before his son's judge asking for leniency, (and getting it.) his son did about 11 months in the big house.

i know, i know, i'll be the first to agree his son was not a drug kingpin but i can't help but think the son saw the father as a liar.

how can a father ask a son to live an honest and decent, (moral even,) life if their own life is filled with corruption?

i would contend, (and this comes from my own experience,) that children recognize the lies we tell them. they see hypocrisy but they feel barred from calling it out. (barred by the belt, most likely.) and so, i believe they act out and rebel based on that. i suspect, on some subconscious level, they lose trust in the person who has always claimed to be the ultimate truth-giver, and so they question much more of what has been handed down, maxims like: drugs bad, justice system just, college good, america free, etc.

and where does this all start? i think it starts with santa claus. such a lighthearted, gnomish, imaginary gift-giver and yet, he is a lie and children invariably figure it out. children come to know the easter bunny is phony and the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

however, they may never come to realize the god they were given was a hoax. they may never suspect our president tells lies. they may never question authority at all, a maxim we were supposed to have adopted in the '60s.

i'm sure "duke" cunningham looked down upon his son after that episode and cried, "why have you failed me?!" and the son probably suffered low self esteem and apologized profusely thinking himself a bad seed.

and dad went to work representing the good people of north san diego county where he brokered shady deals but told a reporter he has never so much as puffed one time on a marijuana joint. still, he probably felt like the paragon of dignity and respect, doing some sort of hocus-pocus shoeshine shuffle in his impish, status quo, establishment, favors for favors head.

belief?

i don't believe in god.

and it's hard to be an atheist in this world where everyone feels so certain they are right that there is this god creature, despite the fact that everyone believes something completely different about who he is or what he is up to and the fact that there has never been one shred of proof suggesting any of the various belief systems are correct.

and i don't suppose people get how i feel about god. to me, this belief system is what keeps us in the dark ages. differences about our beliefs in god is what has caused more bloodshed and turmoil and chaos and death and destruction than any other single factor in the history of mankind. and it goes on today. as a people, we fear the muslims, (these people who actually sacrifice in the name of their belief system.) we fear them because they are so different from us and they believe in a different imaginary creature. perhaps we fear their god will bury our god since history is written by the victors, and so we are afraid of a future without our god and with only their god. (that very same future is the one that causes the most ardent, fundamentalist and extreme muslims to have the happiest of night time dreams.)

men are dying in iraq today, (men whose blood is red and who share the same genetic makeup of one another despite the side they represent,) because some prominent members of the establishment see the convergence of two agendas. by plundering this country as we are doing today, these guys make a lot of money and we make inroads in destroying their god, (the wrong, evil god, we think.) (it's worth noting, too, that many gods have heretofore been destroyed. no longer do we speak of ra or isis or the earth mother goddesses of yore, or so many others. . .)

so in this country we think of christianity as being all nice, god loves you and jesus died for you and awwww, it's all about love. many nice people subscribe to the tenets of the various christian religious systems.

why won't the pope approve contraception for catholics, which in and of itself would end a lot of misery in ireland and south america, among other poor places? because he would be eliminating catholics.

why is the moral majority, (truly an immoral group,) trying to run american politics today? because they have an agenda and they are pursuing it. is the agenda to carry out the values of the historical man jesus? feed the poor, etc? nope. they are interested in amassing more and more political clout so they can legislate the values of americans, censor their tv and radio, return us to puritanical days and ways, times when we suspected women of being witches and threw them in lakes so we could burn them at a stake if they swam, or feel bad about the mistake if they drowned.

this is real stuff. i consider it evidence relative to what we see and what we have today. history is studied so we can learn from it, so we can see trends and know past outcomes and ideally, make a change. it is outrageous how certain americans tend to believe that their god is the right one, considering the various belief systems in the world, especially when our society is so immoral by comparison. (two words as support: enron and iraq.)

onward christian soldiers used the war metaphor for a reason. the war is over who gets the most converts. when king james and the cronies of the day were putting together the bible as we now know it, it was important to have paul's epistles with their exhortations to go ye into all the world and preach the gospel because this is the foundation of the religion. if christians were less concerned with converting people to their belief system, it would wither up and die out in relatively short order.

to me, christianity is among the most horrible of the religions on this planet. the evil it wreaks bothers me on such a level that sometimes to hear my people, people i love and care for, say outlandish things like, "we pray fives times every day," knowing full well they have not studied christianity nor any other religion for that matter and certainly do not perceive the gravity which such a statement represents, i get bothered. i want to ridicule them, (people i care deeply about,) on some level to shake them and wake them up. they could be walking forth in the world, strong and independent, dignified men, afraid of no knowledge, but instead they choose to sally forth in the same cloud of ignorance they have always tarried in.

i get that they know no better, and we may think that they do no harm but truly, this tacit agreement with the status quo is still wreaking much havoc and destruction in the world.

despite my strong feelings about christianity, which come from having a background in it, i recognize many religions are much worse. (surely islam with its metaphor of god despising us and forever on the brink of smashing our world into oblivion for which the adherents pray so often in order to hold back god's smiteful hand, has as much blood and destruction on its hands as any belief system,) but i am here and it is now.

some state in the south has put stickers on their grade school text books declaring evolution to be an unproven theory as it relates to how the world came into existence, to include the life on it. that, is crazy. evolution is a proven fact and can happen in as little as one generation. in ohio they are trying to put creationism into their text books. there is no proof whatsoever that any of that miraculous stuff took place. these things are the product of a scared people and i would we all went forward bravely.

godlessness does not mean you have to just up and go off the deep end of commiting sins. i think that's what a lot of people fear, about others and themselves. i am a far more moral person today than when i was a christian, mired in a slump of guilt, constantly trying to cover my "sins" up. but, it's because the president claims to be christian that so many people will sit idly by and let him lead us, as a nation, to where we have gone. it is also because the president claims to be a christian, which most americans associate with goodness, that someone like me ends up sounding like some loony conspiracy theorist or troubled soul out on the edge or whatever.

who goes on saying they believe in something without knowing anything about that thing they believe in as it relates to the history of the same, what all it entails, etc? a lot of people i love and care about because they are my friends and family.

some believe in times of poor health but say they just really don't know when they are fine, and it's a tough lot being an atheist. here i am considering the basics of some of the most important ideas we can possibly fathom and i am ignored and ridiculed for it, poo-poohed quite regularly, despite the fact i put more energy into the thought and study of these things than most. it's frustrating.

so my frustration slipped out a bit recently. i feel bad that it did and i always do when it does but i apologized. a man must have certain standards to apply to situations like these, especially in light of the regular pummelling he feels relative to these things.

in the aftermath of this incident it was suggested that perhaps i have no light, so who is ruling my life, my loved one wondered? (darkness, they suggested?) i totally disagree. i am letting the light of reality seep into my world when my ancetors refused to allow that.

i think the idea being put forth when it is said that there is light and darkness, good and bad, a god and a devil, is age old, but i do not subscribe. my refusal to acknowledge a fantasy creature we call god, in my opinion, ennobles me. i am of an elite class. i have no need for god. one day i will die. i have no problem with that.

know that i say all i said here to give a glimpse of where i'm really at. people get so offended when i say these things which makes it hard to say them but in truth, i always think i am the one who should feel offended. sometimes i worry i can't keep my christian friends and i worry too that if i disavowed myself of them, it would make family relations all the more strained as well. but of course, i am a man of my time and i must find ways to make peace despite mine disagreement.

communism cafe

i have an idea for a new business. i call it: communism cafe.

communism cafe is a hip diner/coffee bar. it would be ideally located at universal city walk and all the other trendy spots where wolfgang puck and croc cafes usually reside.

the decor would be minimalist with huge images of the proletariat working class manning jackhammers and sporting huge muscles. high ceilings and black poles and commie propaganda posters and waiters dressed like mao. (perhaps we could even excerpt marx inside the menu?)

speaking of the menu, this is what would draw customers into the store. alongside the cost of every item in the menu, we print our profit margin on that item. we would print the profit margin, (and figure the profit margin,) for everything we sell. . .

you see, this is what is so appalling about our brand of capitalism. we don't have monopolies in this country. we have boards. we don't have companies acting in collusion to drive the cost of a thing up because in the age of boards and investors, it is unnecessary. investors demand such high returns, collusion would just be overkill.

i've seen two great examples of this recently and one is my own company. my company was formed as a limited liability partnership between two much larger corporations. those two companies, along with a group of investors, infused my company with a certain amount of cash with which to run the business. the monies gained from the investors represented short term, high interest loans. (i've not studied keynsian economics, nor any other for that matter, so i am just laying this out as i understand it in layman's terms. it's likely in some ways and areas, i'm a bit hazy or slightly off.)

what happens, and what happened, is, the "investment community," monitors the actions of the company. if the company lays off long term employees that cost them more, if the company raises prices and increases revenue, if the company cuts costs, (not only by downsizing,) but also by eliminating things that can be done without, (such as cell phones for their managers,) the investment community gives a big thumbs up to the company who then returns to ask for a lower interest and much longer term loan to pay off the high interest short term loans.

this is the "investment community's" way of exerting pressure on companies to drive profit margins up by any means necessary. collusion obsolete.

here, let me give you an example that might be closer to home. in the case of the dodgers, mr frank mc court knew the system and did exactly the same thing. he garnered a packet of high interest short term loans in order to purchase the team, then he moved in and made changes. goodbye to player's names on the backs of jerseys. farewell, ross porter. hello new seats at astronomically higher prices in front of former front row seats. these are the moves that received a modicum of media attention but rest assured the mc court's cleaned house to a much higher degree.

mc court sent that message those investors needed to hear. he said, i am willing to cut costs by any means necessary, (which i am intimating should be to the chagrin of his customers.) in turn, last week he took out a 25 year loan to pay off the other loans and put him in a more secure position as the owner of the club. he could never have gotten the second loan without the steps he took. (i, for one, already miss you ross porter. and, i still can't tell which one is jd drew and which one is jeff kent, to say nothing of that guy who plays 3rd.) and he could never have wrested ownership of the team without the first set of loans.

so, back to communism cafe. profit margins are too high and it would be great to have a high profile business to make the point and show that it doesn't have to be how it is. it could be the cafe would need one gigantic corporation to stand behind it in the case of a giant lawsuit. (the real idea here being that defending against a giant lawsuit could bankrupt a company all by itself, so the support would be for legal fees to fight any such lawsuit.)

while i believe this issue does have something to do with high profit margins, i do not think these things are in the proper proportion. i feel certain most any company in this country could be run with a 20% reduction in their profit margin and that is what communism cafe would be all about.

if a cheeseburger at applebee's or chili's, (because this is the quality plane i see communism cafe operating on,) is $7, the same burger at communism cafe will be $5.60. if a mocha latte costs $3.75 at starbucks, it will cost $3 at communism cafe.

people, nay consumers, will respond to this. they will beat down the door to pay 20% less for the same product. and that product can be given to them at that price.

one last part of this equation is the pay structure for the employees of communism cafe. employees will be paid commensurately to their counterparts at chili's and applebee's and starbucks. the difference is, those at the highest end will not. if i am an owner of the business and act as a ceo, i will not make the kind of money people with those kinds of titles generally make. i will make more than the next position lower than me and it will be in a step by about the same amount as he makes more than the guy below him.

i'm guessing as owner/ceo, i might expect to make $100,000-$125,000 per year. if communism cafe became a huge chain of stores, it might increase based on the expanding number of employees and the salary scale windening but nobody needs the kind of money today's ceo's make, nor should it be available to them.

imagine, running my own business based on a premise i am passionate about. going to work every day would be a joy. i don't need gobs more money than the next guy. i don't need arrogant opulence.

i just think it would be good if we could check profit margins, (and wall street,) by setting an example, showing it can be done, and watching as business booms and others feel the sting of the intelligent consumer.

sparkle!

i have a picture of terra in my office at work. she is holding her hand up to her chin, smiling slyly and looking off to the right with a sparkle in her eye.

i don't believe in reincarnation, (i'm just not one to believe in myths and theories that can't be substantiated by proof,) none the less, i like to imagine it true occasionally anyway, (just for fun.)

my dad has remarked a couple of times that terra looks like my grandpa and i can see it. you see, she looks like her mother more than anyone else, hands down. but she does look like a tiny female version of the crass, old, curmudgeon that was my grandpa. it is mostly in her eyes. terra has a characteristic that runs in our family. there is a certain glimmer or sparkle that is evident in the eyes of most of my family members. my grandpa had it, to be sure. often times, if you looked at him, you might have gotten the impression he had something up his sleeve. it was like a little droplet of optimism that was always present there. maybe he was scheming or maybe he was secretly pollyanna's third cousin but either way, this little glint of light that played in the pools of his eyes, that danced around even when the light in the room and he remained stationary, was undeniable.

once i wrote about seeing it in a certain photograph of my mother. it caught me by surprise that she had it too. and i've seen it in my own eyes on occasion, moreso as i've grown older. my dad also has it. with him it looks like a bubble is welling up behind blue eyes but only he knows what it really is. maybe the bubble is getting ready to burst. maybe it's some secret, super spiritual remedy for all of mankind's ills.

my grandpa passed away about four years ago. wouldn't it be nice if he had a spirit and that spirit was in some sort of samsara waiting room until terra's birth? i look at terra, at this picture displayed in my office, and i see him.

i see his craggy old face with the eyes of a young man sparkling back at me. i hear his voice, calling to me in muted tones, a giant baritone supporting all other voices, all other sounds. i can feel his love, so warmly cold.

and i see terra's smooth, little face with a grandpa's eyes twinkling back to me. i hear her voice, "dab-dab-dab, dab-dab," so opposite to his in every way: flute to his bass drum, reed to his crashing cymbal. and i feel her love, his love, through her, welcoming me into the fold of humanity, inviting me to open up and express vulnerability, imbuing me with the strength of weakness.

and i know that love is love is love. the abiding love between my grandpa and i and the love between my daughter and i is all the same; one love.

and i think i am the baby in so many ways, so much to teach but so much to learn.

i originally posted a more recent pic because i love it, but here's the one i have in my office. see the sparkle? 

gee! could i be happier? 

race part iv - the epilogue

favors for favors. . . tom delay has taken luxurious trips to golf in scotland, et. al. it seems some of these have been paid for by a republican lobbyist named jack abramoff. delay contributed $15,000 to the campaign of melissa hart who came to represent the 4th district of pennsylvania. abramoff hosted a fundraising dinner for hart's campaign at a restaurant he owns. delay is about to place hart as the chair of the ethics committee which is about to look into his affairs. favors for favors?

read all about this at http://www.jackinthehouse.org/ or check out the organization crew, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington at http://www.citizensforethics.org/.

abramoff referred to the native americans he was defrauding of large sums of money as "monkeys," "troglodytes," and "idiots." (here's merriam webster's definition of troglodyte, by the way: "1 : a member of a primitive people dwelling in caves 2 : a person resembling a troglodyte (as in reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes)"

so what's this got to do with race? well, i think it's interesting that three guys started out talking about race but never came near reaching any sort of concensus or agreement about anything. (in fact, i think we did agree about things at times but. . .)

my original hypothesis was that race tends to act as a diversion and a division. i think for those who are trying like hell to hang onto their money and make more and pass it down to the next generation, they're only too happy to have people invest their lives and souls, (and of course, their lettuce, cabbage, geetus, & greenbacks,) into the issue that is race and race relations.

if you go to that website and you read about this creep; jack abramoff, you will come to understand that cash is his god. my dad used to say that everybody has their god, even atheists. for some it was their christian god with allhis glorious attributes but for others, (he would say,) it might be their porsche or their youthful looks or their tv or their bon-bons or their incessant gossiping. it could be a person place or thing, or it could be as inanimate or esoteric as imagineable, but everyone has that thing that sort of propels them through their life and without which, i guess they would be a heaping mass of confusion.

so when abramoff refers to the native american tribes with epithets, one can read between the lines and see that this guy not only worships and lives for money, he looks down his nose at those who do not think as he does. creep.

it may be that i'm finally disappointed about this dialogue which has occurred on these blogs. it is stimulating but alas, i am beginning to see us as the unwitting participants in this diversionary tactic in the class warfare that is race. it's true, i do not have to walk around every day in white america as a black man, enduring the smirks (and much more,) of a confederacy of dunces and perhaps if i did, i'd feel differently. maybe i'd be so fed up with it, railing against it would be all that restrains me from going postal on a local nordstrom's?

as it is, i find those who would separate themselves from the mass of humanity by accumulating wealth so they can live in the gated community on the hillside, (i see you creeps in arcadia trying to horde the gorgeous view from your gated community,) (please read this if you love righteous activism: http://heavytrash.blogspot.com/2005/04/april-24-2005-for-immediate.html) so they can feel superior to their neighbors, so they won't feel so insecure. . .far more offensive.

the end of race

race does not necessarily exclude people from just about anything, in our society. this is to say, regardless of race, a person can become just about anything they want to become. it's true we have not had a non-white president in the usa but we have heard names like powell and cisneros very near to that seat of power.

if you are poor, you are barred from mingling with the rich man. no houses in beverly hills until you ARE the rich man. no finely tailored suits until you are the rich man. no mercedes benz, no plasma color tv, no wolfgang puck, no courtside seats, no luxury vacations, until you are the rich man. you may serve the rich man, you may take an occasional handout from the rich man, but you cannot walk in his shoes period.

it's a shame that racism exists but if i may make myself as clear as possible one last time on this subject, i'm far more concerned with the neocons right now than the neo-nazis. both dangerous, both offensive, but one represents a significantly greater threat than the other.

wizzers

what is it with these wizened wizzers who must step into a stall in order to urinate in public, men's restrooms? what's wrong with them? are they afraid someone may see their junk and ridicule it for a lack of length or girth? do they really have such severe stagefright they cannot make it happen when others are in the same room and if so, isn't this something one just resolves themself to overcome? what the hell do these people do at outdoor, amphitheatre-style concerts? wait for a stall?!

i went into a stall today just to get some tp w/ which to blow my nose. the lid was up indicating the bastard who had pissed all over the commode and failed to flush was clearly a large and considerate fellow. (i could tell more about the magnanimous fuck, too. the bright, acetone yellow urine suggested a high vitamin intake or severe diabetes, which may explain why he's angry at half of the whole world to the point of pissing all over everything like an infant on a saltpeter iv drip.)

most men's rooms have a two-to-one ratio urinals to stalls, making it considerably easier to step up to a wall and leak as nature intended, (no aiming necessary.) most also have little walls to shield these shrinking violets from the prying eyes of their peers, (no pun intended.) it's not like dodger stadium where a wide trough awaits the piss of countless, beer-guzzling baseball fans but one must hang their dodger dog out in fairly public view in order to relieve themselves.

of all the prejudice and discrimination in our society, why does it all seem to be based on natural things beyond one's control? in other words, since a guy can't change the color of his skin or the shape of his eyes, shouldn't we just accept these things and move on to more important assholes? stall-pissers commit a sin so hideous and offensive, i can hardly bear to think about it. (jerks.)

first, they seek to separate themselves from the masses of man. let's face it, most of us are quite willing and able to step up to the urinal and let flow a relieving golden shower. so what's so wrong or special about these sob's they have to hide in a little partitioned section to piss? it's just a leak. everybody does it. they must have to go or else they wouldn't have shown up in the men's room to begin with.

theirs is a sin of proactivity. when they slip past the urinals and go to the stall to close themselves in, they aggressively portray themselves as some super-refined creatures of modesty. as if men were meant to be modest or demure. let's face some facts, we think with our penises and our penis is all we ever think about. no one's asking these sissies to run about with their member flapping in the wind in public view. just take a piss like a man. at the urinal, where it's quick and convenient.

second, they shoot their stream farther through the air creating greater splash and increasing the odds of poor aim or a diverted stream. vasodephrins can do only so much for maintaining the integrity of a stream of piss-if a guy's a bad aim, (or if he's drunk,) he's a bad aim. piss should go in the receptacle. i don't like to clean it up and i don't fancy making whomever's chore it is any less appealing, (as if that's possible.) in fact, i hate looking at a messy pisser's byproducts when i am merely trying to acquire some paper to clear my nasal cavity. bastards.

the rest of us use the stalls for far more important business. that business requires a level of cleanliness that cannot be overstated. in contrast to home practices, most of us have a veritable ritual of cleaning and grooming to conduct before we enter into said business in a public rest room. focus and concentration are key to that business and a sterile enviroment is integral to focus and concentration. pee at the urinal, loser!

just as everyone should "freeze out," (a term my girlfriend enjoys using,) a known domestic abuser, stall-pissers should get a cold stare from anyone in the men's room after ambling into their hovel and not turning around. if there's no flush, they should get kicked in the groin. (hard.) if we, as a class of citizenry cannot band together around a basic truth such as the fact these creeps are a threat to every pisser everywhere, we might as well rid ourselves of the sacred invention urinal and return our rest rooms to the partitioned vacuums of camraderie ladies' rooms are.

if you must wiz in private, please, do so sitting down. it just seems appropriate.

race II?

perhaps i was not as clear in my last entry as i would have preferred to be. the point i intended to make was that economy is primary. this is to say it comes before any of the other things mentioned and it weighs heavier. i don't mean to suggest how much heavier, only that in my estimation it plays the greatest role. it was not my intention to suggest that economy is at the root of all the byropoducts of racism. rather, i think racism divides and has, at times, been the cause of distraction from certain truths which have everything to do with economy.

when the bush's left kennebunkport for the capitol and the sons established themselves in florida and texas, and the talking heads talk talk talk about it being a political strategy, then they pour money into campaigns to win governorships, (and let's face it, in texas the money bought an election for an average ivy league student at best, by all accounts, from maine, over a popular incumbent,) then they win elections creating a presidential dynasty of wealth and power and favors, and the policies of that president afflicts poor people daily in the prisons of the united states, in the alleys behind the hospitals which won't treat them, in their manual labor jobs they get to in 1980s jalopies w/ "w '04," stickers on them, (so fucking fooled,) and they hate labor unions because money was spent to get them to think that way, and despite the fact president's have not affected roe v wade in some 40 years, they vote based on the candidates stance on this issue because money was spent to make them think this way, (they're programmed, man, money was spent to make them think this way,) they buy into supply side economics because money was spent to make them think this way, they tolerate republican presidents w/ their own agenda to make their name in history, (blah, blah, blah,) by invading some piece of crap little country somewhere which could never come close to standing up to our military might, thereby spending billions of dollars and turning what was a thriving economy into the crap economy of the world complete with sagging currency and trade deficits because money was spent to make them think it was the rightthing to do, (though in reality, for every one of those who lose money based on this economy, there is someone who wins and the president and his cronies likely know every one of those people,) they tolerate corruption at the highest levels of business because the ill-gotten money always ends up in their coffers anyway, (thanx ken lay you dirty fucking pig,) they are distracted by celebrity steroid scandals while wildernesses protected by the american people for decades are opened up for drilling which is sure to line the pockets of some rich texas oil baron or another who has got to be friends w/ our average ivy league student because money was spent to make them look away, (look away, look away, look away.) they don't seem to mind a guy who needed the credential of having served his country on his resume to be eligible for the highest seat of power so he chose a crap-ball, outdated airplane to learn to fly, (knowing it would not be involved in a certain "conflict,") and got favors for favors to serve in alabama instead of his other home texas and even skipped duties relative to that cushy assignment, but they do mind the other guy getting an extra-marital bj because money was spent to make them think that way. (they think it is a moral question but where is the morality in all this cronyism and cheating of the little guy?)

race divides and while i have felt the subtle look or occasional gesture based against my long man-hair or my slightly slanted eyes or my skin color which was not du jour for the spot, it has never, ever affected me in the way these other things do. i have never sat in a high level corporate meeting listening to a guy talk about a strategy for how we can continue to get money out of people without providing a great deal of value for said cash without noticing the subjective morality business-people have adopted. but our society, and i do not mean you and me personally or individually, but by and large in our society, we, (and i think it is important to state it that way so we stay angry and keep pushing for something better,) are more concerned with some group of dumbass white supremacists of the week on maury or local news coverage of yet another gang shooting or jerry and his merry band of lowest common denominators or cops and all the poor people on that show, of various skin tones, we tune in in droves to watch in order to feel better about our pathetic lives. this is where i'm coming from. it aint about the skin color, it's about certain people oppressing others with their money. it's about plush, favor-for-favor, repulican-gotten fcc appointments to open the door for clear channel and rupert murdoch cause if you can control the airwaves you can control the people because money will change the way they think. i know, i saw the money spent to make them think that way.

i've mellowed with age and i recognize that the key people in the middle, the decent americans who are somewhat fooled but still somewhat open to reason do not listen to anger. they tune out and disappear. so i've toned it down over the years because i am interested in making a difference. but trust, i liken it to our ability to understand the murderer and the child molestor and yes, even the crooked self-serving politician, because we have a measure of that man inside us, (be it ever so minimal for me and i hope for you,) but trust, i also still have a measure of that seething warlock of a bitch-ass-mother-fucker who is pissed to the gills about all this shit i've been talking about. fuck the g ride i want the machines that are making 'em.

remember joycelyn elders, clinton's failed appointee to be the surgeon general who did not condemn masturbation as a tool of satan? i saw her once on late night tv being interviewed by tom snyder. (i can't remember if i made a phone call last night but i remember this.) he asked her what the #1 health danger in the world was and she answered, (in heartfelt david byrne style,) same as it ever was; ignorance. not aids. not cholera, scarlet fever, polio, hepatitis, the plague, (black or otherwise,) the common cold or any other malady you and i expected to come out of her mouth. this super-intelligent godsend of a woman said; "ignorance," (and just about that softly.) undoubtedly, she's right.

this is why people in america today think the following words are dirty: liberal, communism, left-wing, labor union, gun control, (like some jackass who couldn't pass 10th grade english should be toting an ak-47,) affirmative action, ralph nader, cuba, free speech, etc. these people, too, they are the nicest of people. they work hard like us. they cook and clean and raise families and give gifts at xmas time-they're the freakin' salt of the earth, but they're fooled and it starts at the top.

it's fucking god's fault. i mean, it can't be the fault of an imaginary creature but it starts right there. until more of this ignorance falls away from us, we're going to be influenced by the money they spend to influence us. last week i was confronted by a friend who believes in ghosts. ghosts?! geezus h fucking christ!?! ghosts? (*winces and scratches head*) and they believe in god but they believe in all kinds of different ideas surrounding him, (doctrines and attributes and names. . .) some believe he's a woman. for some there are many gods, all without so much as an ounce of proof. you can hardly get someone to believe there's a guy on tv pulling a train by a piercing through his nose but imaginary, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creature who created our world and our kind and lives in heaven with streets of gold and has a son who died in order to redeem our sin nature, blah-blah-blahhh? duhhhh, yep. (oh, and did i mention he's a god of love who knew how it all would turn out beforehand, including the hellfire and brimstone and gnashing of teeth part for the relative masses, but created it anyway? spiffy, huh?)

in my 20s i wanted to rage against the machine. i was mad my mother overdosed on heroin, that she was 14 when she had me and i never met my biological father. i was pissed at a lot of things i discovered. thankfully, i've arrived at a point where i recognize the impotence of mine rage. i accept those circumstances that formerly gave me visions in red. it is as it is. going forward i can make of my life whatever i want. the thing is, i have a choice. i could continue to be mad. and i don't regret having been mad, it served a purpose. but that time has passed. so now i choose acceptance of the truth and to go forward. i have a daughter. i am going to make this world better for her. i am.

and to at least a degree, this is how i have come to view race. i would we all just agreed to move past this angry stage of racism and sat down to a meal of enchiladas and collared greens and hummous and schnitzel and all the other foods of the peoples of the world. i wish we could just choose it. now.

i think it is important too, for me to mention that i love my country. i am not a patriot as such-i am opposed to nationalism. still, i recognize the good that has come from this country. i love our constitution and the bill of rights. i know we are a good people, despite the ignorance that sometimes obscures our actions.

race, belief systems, diversionary tactics all. we need to continue to fight the good fight and educate the good people of the united states so their political representatives are more representative of their/our values. simultaneously, we need to continue to overcome racism, by every means available. again, education is the key.

chuck d and race relations

race does have the power to divide, doesn't it?

i get frustrated by the way race is used in this country to create division among people. every single time someone remarks about how race is at the root of this or that problem or how a certain race has a certain trait or certain tendencies, i get frustrated just hearing it.

i think it was the communist manifesto where i learned an important lesson that has stayed with me all these years. economy is the one force that plays upon everyone's life most significantly. based on economy, much can be accurately predicted or intuited about a life. i get that sometimes people defy conventions as such, but economy is. . .

in chuck d's book, Fight the Power : Rap, Race, and Reality, chuck spends a lot of time explaining how things have stacked up against american blacks in the past and continue to do so in the present. ultimately, he's right most of the time. when he talks about the slave trade, he's right, and it is maddening that our forebears thought it was okay to do what they did. (i say this as three-fourths of a white man even if my irish ancestors were practically enslaved by the british.) chuck's book made me think about how it was possible to enslave people. now, i know the chinese invented gun powder and it seems to me an american invented the rifle but it must have been some european or another who invented some type of handgun that allowed the white euros to hop across the mediterranean and set up bases for the slave trade. or perhaps they were simply better organized and so, were prepared to counter any resistence the tribes of africa might have offered. in any case, what we all should agree on is that the act of enslaving humans for any purpose whatsoever was, (and is,) reprehensible.

chuck d assesses inequities in the music business, talking specifically about his grand visions for the genre rap, how the players within that genre are not as organized as they should be, and how the powers that be, everyone from music execs to corporate radio programmers, keep rap down.

chuck d comes through in his book as an honest and respectable man, a heroic figure in fact, fighting injustice and openly and honestly judging himself and his actions. i believe he means every word he coauthored in his book and i do not believe any portion of it is intended to be mere propaganda.

still, i disagree with him and others when it is suggested race is at the core of the various inequities. it is not race-it is economy. (same as it ever was.) i doubt the white, euro slave trader was appalled at the color of the african's skin to such a degree he plotted slavery. i don't think the southern plantation owner had a hideous reaction to the color of his slave's skin. rather, he recognized the manpower increased his own wealth, which was a greater incentive than a racial hate or intolerance ever could be. (what do you find more compelling: financial gain or revenge?) when chuck d talks about how much more money could have been made in the game of rap music, be it through merchandising or touring, the question is who would have been making the money. the white executives who would have put up the money for said ventures or the black recording artists or licensed rights owners? if the venture was risky for the white promoter because buildings were getting razed, it was economy which compelled the promoter not to get involved with the tour/venture. did that cost black artists money? yes. it did. my point is i think the promoter who did not become involved because he is prejudiced against black people is likely the exception to the rule.

i swear i have heard virtually every race called lazy at some time or another. recently i watched a latin kings of comedy show and noticed several jokes were dependant on the audience recognizing a stereotype of latin people being seen as lazy. i suppose they are the people of the afternoon siesta but still. . . my ancestors, (the 3/4,) have always been considered a lot of drunks. but then i've also heard similar stereotypes used on native americans. my ex-girlfriend used to swear up and down that no men were as domineering as armenian men. ha! i never could understand how she said it with a straight face. ask a japanese woman about that subject. or an indian woman. talk to the italian women about their men and see if you don't hear the same things. come to think of it, gender differences seem way more authentic to me than skin color ones. social and cultural differences will always exist, (but then there's always carlton, too.) my 1/4 side is known to eat the meat of dogs. (i've always wanted to write this next sentence. . .) wops, chinks, niggers, nips, cans, spics, mc's, russkies, polaks, trailer trash, japs, nazis, gooks, crackers, and rednecks are just a fraction of the many racial slurs that exist. in fact, most people and most languages have a slur of sorts for any person who is not of them or their place. if you are white in hawaii, someone might call you a haoli. if you are not armenian but your girl friend is, listen closely amongst her people for the word "odar." it means outsider.

the point is, the guy from the other side of town who we don't know but about whom we can perceive outward differences, will always be feared to some degree. he will always be regarded as an outsider so long as he stays an outsider. but he is usually not oppressed unless financial gain can be gleaned from him in some way.

tell me what race i am talking about when i describe these people. they are in our prisons in a disproportionately greater amount than how they are represented in society. they tend to be less educated. they tend to have great amounts of drama in their lives. they die sooner than the national average in part, because they have lower quality health care, (if they have health care at all.) they use drugs to a greater degree than any other segment of society. they are often characterized as lazy. they collect more unemployment compensation and welfare benefits than any other group. they are the most likely people in our society to spend time homeless. they are seen as dirty. they lack manners and class. they use poor grammar. by comparison, they smell bad.

this is poor folk. (again, there are always those who defy the rules or odds or convention but by and large,) economy is the force that dictates these things about people.

another thing chuck talks about in his book is how black americans are too often divided against one another. he suggests they should be united in their struggle against oppression and makes many similar points to the one made in john singleton's film; boyz in the hood, when lawrence fishburn's character explains how jewish people, a race which has suffered persecution, unite by patronizing one another's businesses and thusly, bring up the whole, (if you will.) i do not condone that behavior, from jewish/israeli people or anyone else. i would we lived in a meritocracy. it is my intention to run my life that way. i choose my friends based on a sort of merit system. but then, this idea is similar to that of affirmative action, which i agree with. as capitalism is a competitive system, when you hold a competitor, (an entire race or class of people,) at the starting line for some 15-200 years while everyone else is running to get ahead, it is hardly a fair race. for those who complain they did not commit the atrocities represented by slavery i say, the sins of the father are visited on the son. step up and take your medicine like a dignified man. it may be an imperfect solution but it has dignity. and in this way, i understand why chuck d feels as he does about the black cause. i get why he feels it is necessary for black people to band together and think as one. he wants the conditions of black people to have greater equity in society. he doesn't want a disproportionate number of black men to be incarcerated. he does want a proportionate number of black men, (and women,) represented in the board rooms of america. and so, he pursues, (in his book,) an agenda that doesn't sit entirely well with me but one i understand none the less.

in our country and system, (capitalism,) people can usually be seen either trying to get money or hold on to money. (the best movie i have seen for the insight it imparts is born rich. it is made by an heir to the johnson and johnson family fortune. watch that documentary and see if you don't get a bad taste in your mouth for those who seek to hold on to money.)

race is a diversionary tactic. chuck d spends time in his book talking about how plantation owners recognized the importance of creating division amongst slaves. it helped the owner to maintain control. in our modern day, race relations work in exactly the same way. we get caught up in thinking race is the difference that causes differences. in fact, it is economy. when riots erupted in los angeles, (either time,) and stores were looted, that was not a black-white thing. that was a have-have not thing.

i'm glad chuck d got me to thinking about these things.

U2-Vertigo Tour-Opening Night

bono once said u2's greatest fear when they embarked on their journey to rock and roll immortality was that they would grow up and suck. well guess what, even after all these years and their advanced age, u2 still does not suck. (but they may be working on it. . .)

i want to establish my authority to review u2, which is tricky business. i don't have the authority of a press pass or a gig writing for some rock mag. i am neither a friend nor an enemy of the band. i don't want to give the typical adam sandleresque rundown of the shows i've seen etcetera but, i have followed them since the early part of their careers.


*adam sandleresque rundown of shows*

• first saw them at the long beach civic auditorium in support of the unforgettable fire, (i think.)
• saw them twice more in la at the sports arena, same tour.
• (missed them touring for the joshua tree as i was in japan.)
• ended up not going to mann's grauman's chinese theatre for their impromptu show on the street at the hollywood opening of rattle and hum.
• saw zoo tv tour indoor broadcast at the same san diego sports arena i saw them open the vertigo tour at last night. clutched hands with bono during until the end of the world. i had great seats-they had a tiny stage thrust out about 15 rows into the crowd.
• saw zoo tv outdoor broadcast (w/ the sugarcubes and public enemy,) at dodger stadium.
• saw popmart at jack murphy stadium in san diego, mile high stadium in denver, and the coliseum, in la.
• saw all that you can't leave behind tour at arrowhead pond and at staples center, in la.
• counting monday, march 28th at san diego, that's nine times i've seen them live.
• i own some u2 memorabilia which has increased in value from when i purchased it by 2,000%.
• you get the picture, i'm quite a fan.
• but i'm not loony. it is not as if u2 can do no wrong in my sphere. while i am forgiving, i like to think i am fair in criticism, even when considering some of my favorite artists ever.
  
  so let me tell you about monday night. 91x, the only san diego radio station worth listening to, played only u2 songs on monday and touted the fact they would not be repeating any version of any song. i was able to listen for several hours during the day and those songs helped me get excited about the show. (i even heard a couple of songs i had not previously heard, thanks to the ipod release of their every track.)
  
  they opened with a song from how to dismantle an atomic bomb, (i think it was city of blinding lights,) then rolled right into vertigo. i think vertigo is a great song. thanks to u2's marketing campaign with the aforementioned ipod, i have little desire to hear it these days but i still like the song. (market saturation sucks-u2 does not.) to me the song is about vertigo, it's about the loss of equilibrium and balance in the age of information and sensation overload. it is brilliantly crafted so the music and the pulse of it, (along with the lyrics,) contributes to the overall message/feel of the piece of art that is the song. it would fit on radiohead's ok computer only where those songs speak of the isolation of the age of technology, of the chill of the confrontation inherent in solitude, of the confusion of media, vertigo admits those possibilities but suggests you may dance anyway. (and let's face it, i'm all about dancing.) when bono sings, "i can feeeeeeeeeeeeel!" it is typical u2, ever hopeful and positive in the face of confusion. the ad campaign for which u2 did not accept any royalties beyond the countless kids brought into the fold of u2 fans, seems to have discounted the real value the song merits.
  
  soon after vertigo, u2 fired up the time machine and went back to boy in conjuring stories for boys and an cat dubh/into the heart. wow. this portion of the show was easily the highlight for me. i didn't expect such a treat. and u2's sound and those songs stood the test of time in so much as they sounded like they could have been played on any alt-radio station last week. in fact, (speaking of radiohead,) u2's sound was as it really was back then, atmospheric and moody. i remember the days of the unforgettable fire when critics would describe u2's music as ethereal and spacey, these words seemed to be a denouncement of their ability to make a pop song or a love ballad or something that was truly radio friendly. boy, october and the unforgettable fire were filled with songs that evoked similar descriptions. and this inability to reach the masses so early in their tenure was likely a blessing, (because i believe they would have if they could have.)
  
  to be honest, the show never really went south. i could listen to u2 play live for as long as they could play live-i'm pretty sure. but when it ended, i was disappointed. in the course of their set, they played some great songs. they played bullet the blue sky and where the streets have no name. they hit, all the hits, (mostly.) beautiful day, elevation, one, sunday bloody sunday, pride (in the name of love,) zoo station, the fly, new year's day, etc.
  
  two songs stand out as having sounded exceptionally good. u2's rhythm section took new year's day and drove it right into my chest. it thumped and pumped and edge's guitar fill just sort of loomed over the whole thing and bono intoned the lyrics in a heartfelt way without seeming overwrought. listening to it i was reminded of bono's story about how he imagined lech walesa's reunion with his wife upon release from prison when he wrote the song. when u2 played the song, i was transported to that cell walesa lived in. i imagined the moments he must have longed for his wife and felt like the world would stop when they reunited and he would be with her, (be with her,) night and day. and to me, this is where u2 slays all other bands except the beatles. their lyrics are better. period. bono is a poet on par with bob dylan. running to stand still was also outstanding. gone were the theatrics of bono puncturing his arm with a heroin-laden syringe but what was left was what was always there: a tender and moving rendering of a person stuck in a moment of weakness. and it sounded like we all knew the song and we all sang along; "hah-la-la-lah-di-day, hah-la-la-light-o'-day, hah-la-la-di-day. . ."
  
  a couple of non-musical moments were nice as well. first, they opened the show with slow-falling, glittering confetti dropping from the center of the arena, and second, they had an interlude featuring the text of the united nation's declaration of human rights with an entreaty to fans to go to www.one.org to help create global equality. bravo to u2 for fighting for social justice.
  
  this is really just one of many reasons why i adore u2 but they tend to have themes and causes they promote and lend their support to, from record to record and tour to tour. from bono's recent efforts on behalf of jubilee 2000, (all that you can't leave behind,) to the band's campaign to increase the membership for amnesty international, (joshua tree,) to their seminal days raging against the violence that ripped families apart in ireland, (war,) u2 recognizes their position and status and they do not back down from it-in fact, they are responsible with it.
  
  in many ways, i feel like i have journeyed with u2. when i was a teenager, i was drawn to u2 because they were positive. it's that simple. i liked bands in those days like the cure, who were dark and seemed pessimistic. i liked the eurythmics and depeche mode who seemed more stylish than substantive and for this reason precisely, i championed u2. i told everyone i knew about this band, carried their cassettes around with me as if i was the u2 evangelist. and yes, i was something of an evangelist and that did play into the equation. when bono sang on tomorrow, (off of october,) "i want you to be back tomorrow, i want you to be back tomorrow, will you be back tomorrow. . .open up, open up, to the lamb of god, to him who made the blind to see, he's coming back, he's coming back, i belieeeeeeeve, jesus is coming!" i rejoiced. when on the zoo tv tour the band played running to stand still and bono began singing hallelujahs with outstretched arms and head tilted back, twirling in a circle under the spotlight, it felt more pure and worshipful then anything i ever experienced in a church. it was a celebration.
  
  in the late 80s, when i was living in japan, it seemed everyone was listening to bon jovi. i remember a friend coming back from the states, (from arizona, specifically,) telling me u2 was blowing up stateside, on mtv every 20 minutes, contests and radio airplay galore. . . i went home weeks later and sure enough, u2 was hitting it as big as i had always predicted. i felt like the preacher who had predicted christ's return on so many sunday afternoons and finally witnessed the rapture. well, those late 80s years were the worst i ever encountered musically. after u2, (and the pixies,) it was difficult for good bands to get airplay because the airwaves were clogged up with trash like poison, warrant and skid row.
  
  years later i was fortunate enough to hear and enjoy nirvana, pearl jam, radiohead, jeff buckley, and of course there were a lot of other great bands or artists along the way but u2 had the rare ability to retain their dignity, act responsibly and be commercial. in being commercial, it could be argued that they "sold out," in any number of ways but what being commercial really means is reaching a wider and larger audience. i suppose selling out can be a valid term if the process involves somehow not being true to oneself and/or lowering one's values in some way. but u2's quality of product has always been high. they're lyrics are second to none. their humanitarian efforts are more effective than others. (have a concert and send food to ethiopia and feed the people for a day. get ethiopia's debt forgiven and increase the value of their currency and you practically teach them to fish.)
  
  so while i enjoy some dark bands, (surely there is no better 2am music than leonard cohen,) i love u2's commitment to positivity. here's an encapsulated version of some of the messages i heard u2 sending over their life span as artists:
  
• "i can't change the world, but i can change the world in me." (rejoice - october)
• "i will follow." (i will follow - october)
• "In te domine...exultate...miserere." (gloria - october)
• "a new heart is what i need, oh god, make it bleed. . .let the bells ring out." (like a song - war)
• "if i want to live, i got to die to myself some day." (surrender - war)
• bono, on u2's charity/activism efforts: "it's anything you can do, if you can just do it with a bit of dignity."

there are many biblical references and much biblical imagery in u2's lyrics, (not unlike leonard cohen.) right up through pop, these references abound. after pop, (all that you can't leave behind and how to dismantle an atomic bomb,) they seem to become more overt, (almost as overt as on october, at which point in time their obscurity as a band tended to mask their would be credo, especially from the listener who is backtracking.)

u2 may have shown a dark side when they wrote surrender, (for war,) or running to stand still, but in those days their dark side wore a halo. they were the innocent observer of darkness, writing their poems about friends and acquaintances who succumbed to addiction or worse, but it wasn't until achtung baby that they actually showed their own ability to delve into the pit of sin or destruction. maybe silver and gold from rattle and hum showed a glimpse of the grittier side of life they were approaching? in that song they seem to recognize the nature of currency and perhaps, capitalism.

"the warden says the exit is sold, if you want a way out, silver and gold."

if they were remarking on or exploring an aspect of societal inequality or expressing any iota of outrage, who knows, but in achtung baby u2 can be heard as men, finally. corporeal, sage, balanced, men. zoo station is about a subway station in berlin where people can be seen shooting up drugs in public. in this way, it is said berlin is a 48-hour city-many people, (especially in the inner city,) stay up for 48 hours at a time, (for obvious reasons.) the band went to berlin because history was occurring, (also in public.) they thought the events of the day and the place would infuse their work with an energy and creativity perhaps they had not previously known. (i recall these things from being a fan, from reading the articles in the various magazines, from reading bill flanagan's u2 at the end of the world and eamon dunphy's unforgettable fire books, and perhaps from being on the u2 wire fan club thingy in my earliest days of surfing the internet. i haven't the time to cite quotes or even research or fact check but i believe i am accurate in the essence in these things.) and it did. actually, i would guess their age and circumstances played a greater role in the final product achtung, but it all played. edge went through a divorce and bono wrote about it/imagined it. axl rose called one the greatest rock ballad ever written, (this from the band who couldn't. . .) and i concur with his estimation. one is sublime in its grip on the pain and vertigo of love relationships.

"you say, love is a temple, love the higher law, you ask me to enter but then you make me crawl, but i can't keep holding on to what you got, when all you got is hurt."

in its simplicity, ("one heart, one life, one love. . .) it conveys basic human emotion and it is like the water of rock songs, it is for everyone. in its complexity. . .

"have you come here for forgiveness?
have you come to raise the dead?
have you come here to play jesus to the lepers in your head?
did I ask too much?
more than a lot?
you gave me nothing, now it's all I got.
we're one, but we're not the same. we hurt each other, then we do it again."

it is achingly poignant. in one you can sense the dance of lovers and leavers. why did he or she come to the other? when nothing is offered and nothing is what is retained, it fucking hurts, man. you know what i mean? can you feel it right there. bono grew a pair of sarcastic nuts on this song. while one ends positively enough, ("we get to carry each other. . .") three songs later he's stroking his sarcasm again on so cruel. (i'm certain i remember bono specifically saying he imagined edge's perspective when writing this song.)

"we crossed the line, who pushed who over? it doesn't matter to you-it matters to me. we're cut adrift, but still floating, i'm only hanging on to watch you go down, my love."

bitter. bitterly beautiful and poignant and real.

"i disappeared in you, you disappeared from me, i gave you everything you ever wanted, wasn't what you wanted."

i knew this girl, (and i don't mean edge's ex-i think her name was aislinn.) i mean the prototype. this is the same girl who reappears in tryin' to throw your arms around the world. she is never satisfied. she thinks there is always something out there bigger and better and brighter and louder and more exhilarating in every way and of course, she's a dumbass. and that is my point about this song and this record, it translates. bono is a master of basic imagery, (hence, the biblical references galore.) but he never got it better than on achtung. he once referred to that record as "a heavy mutha," and he was right. it's so heavy it can't be my brother. it's so heavy the cool british rock press always (correctly) ranks it up there with sgt peppers and a couple others as best rock albums ever. it's so heavy, not even u2 can surpass it.

"the men who love you, you hate the most, they pass right through you like a ghost, they look for you but your spirit is in the air, baby, you're nowhere."

okay, okay, i'll stop already but look at that. this is a universal feeling. if we haven't all known someone who exemplified these passages, we've felt like we did at one time or another. one more thing, bono can't really be sexual. he doesn't seem to have it in him. i guess it is likely because he never wanted to write rock and roll songs about sex in the back seat of a chevy, but sex is obviously another catholic area in the panorama of human experience, fertile area to write about and explore. while he can refer to "the orbit of your hips, eclipse. . ." for the most part, his self image/dogma/messianic complex/ideals do not allow him to write crappy lyrics about sex that end up coming off like a 14-year-old boy fumbling around in the dark for his penis. the closest he came though was on this album when he conjured a dream within a dream of the encounter between judas and jesus in until the end of the world.

"in my dreams, i was drowning in sorrows, but my sorrows they learned to swim, surrounding me, going down on me, spilling over the brim, waves of regret, waves of joy, i reached out for the one i tried to destroy and you, you said you'd wait, until the end of the world."

now doesn't that sound a lot better than "you make a grown man cry?" despite the fact the best sexual imagery he ever conjured was meant to address the age old christian doctrine question about the possibility of judas obtaining salvation, this is a sort of intelligent sexual allusion.

i suspect as u2 ventured into dance music and made zooropa and pop, they figured a diversion would best sustain them from a typical obsolescence, (perhaps the stigma of sting's five good records theory.) the lyrics remained strong, the music was good, pop, in particular, was a really good record. however, they're status on the charts waned.

as an aside. . . (i swear this happened to me. one day, i heard thom yorke being interviewed for a french radio station and he talked about how when he heard some record or another by some other band, [maybe it was air?] he felt ill. it took me a second but i got it. a month or so later, u2 was on kroq suffering through an interview with jed the fish, [or maybe it was a breakfast with kevin and bean when they drank the guiness and champagne concoctions,] and i heard bono say exactly the same thing but about the new oasis or rem records. hmmm. . . i love this guy; bono, but perhaps sometimes he doth protest too much. er, i mean, perhaps sometimes he does seem a bit contrived in his messages to the public. maybe it was sheer happenstance, coincidence. maybe.)

anyway, at that time they were promoting all that you can't leave behind. they really screwed up the titles on these two records, by the way. pop should have been all that you can't leave behind. they couldn't leave behind the disco balls of zooropa, the underground parties of nyc with all the hipsters and cross-dressers, the rock star image of macphisto and the glitter guy. (he just morphed into the muscley t-shirt guy or the unabomber.) all that you can't leave behind should have been pop, because that's what it is. some of the best pop i've ever heard, too. the songs on that record can be played on easy listening stations as well aor stations. some get airplay on alt-rock fm channels, (walk on, in a little while,) some make pop radio execs drool, (beautiful day, wild honey, in a little while.) and then there are peace on earth and grace. there are not more than about six or seven u2 songs i actually dislike, (okay, okay, i'll list them for you:)

• 
  a room at the heartbreak hotel
  even better than the real thing
  peace on earth
  grace
  yahweh

while grace is somewhat less off-putting than peace on earth, they are both trite pieces of steaming crap. (wow, crap twice in one piece and i never use that word. must be bono.) i can see where bono may have thought he didn't care how trite these songs seemed, the point was to reach milling masses of human life with a basic humanist message and maybe there is something to that. maybe in using the vertigo/ipod marketing putsch thereby expanding u2's reach to another generation, they can somehow elevate on a grand scale. why not? (and screw bob dylan for getting in bed with victoria's secret.)

the ultimate question is, can you promote belief in god and christian values and retain your relevance? if u2 is humanist, how can they also be christian? differences in opinion of religion have wreaked a greater amount of death, destruction, havoc and carnage on the human species than any other. u2, (and bono in particular,) are extremely careful when they discuss the topic of religion. if a question is posed to the band relating to religious beliefs, i have actually heard bono say something to the effect of, "ooh, that one's on religion, i'll take that question." reading between the lines, i believe their goal is to avoid associating themselves with a particular doctrine or sect but at the same time, to identify with all who believe and who consider their belief systems to be at the core of their fundamental values and/or, that which restrains them from the pursuit of evil.

(i will try not to digress into this topic too much but. . .) i struggle with religion and religious people. on the one hand, i have friends who are devout christians. they are the salt of the earth-nicest people you would ever want to meet. one practiced jesus-style christianity years ago when he let me live in his living room because i needed a place to stay. (rent free.) on the other hand, there are people out there like jerry falwell who are as intolerant as the day is long, blaming homosexuality for terrorist attacks and things like that. there is osama bin laden out there, believing america and americans evil to the core. there are peaceful sunni muslims and there are more radical shiite muslims. there are mormons in utah who believe in polygamy and there are christians in the united states who believe those mormons will spend eternity in hell, weeping and gnashing their teeth.

so given the potential for religious ideas to cause such great division amongst humans, why embrace those images and ideas at all? can they really be seen as humanist? when bono was running around the stage with a white flag, wasn't the flag meant to represent an absence of division? perhaps it represented the idea of surrender in some positive light but the absence of colors on a flag was clearly an absence of division. it stood for brotherhood. it contrasted with the religious warring ever present in northern ireland. religion in this world is all about division. religion causes brother to take up arms with one another. little else has the power to cause such strife amongst humans and yet, u2 has become increasingly overt in their zeal of late.

i didn't like when my rock concert turned into a church service. u2's encore consisted of pride, where the streets have no name, one, all because of you, yahweh and 40. yahweh means god in hebrew. like the entire record and despite the guitars and drums, it is a soft singsongy sort of tune you might have sang with a group on a hay ride at church camp. it is not a terrible song. it's just, who needs a u2 song called yahweh? perhaps it's a metaphysical new-agey positivity thing. still, who needs that? who needs to delve into the religious? is it possible bono thinks we might all still get on the same page some day. (and if so, would he condone the war that caused it to come about?)

40's lyrics come from the psalm of the same number. on monday night they ended their show as they did several times when i saw them in the 80s. as the crowd sang the chorus along with bono,

"i will sing, sing a new song. . ."

bono left the stage waving goodbye. next edge took off his axe and departed as well. soon adam followed and eventually, as the crowd continued to sing the chorus, larry stopped drumming and left 15,000 people singing and swaying.

when i was a young christian, devout as anyone, intent on spreading the gospel and happy to spend a worhipful evening singing songs and studying the bible, i adored this ending. i used to look down my nose at the fans of other bands thinking, 'they just don't get it.' this camaraderie evident at a u2 show pulled me in and if only for an evening, made me feel all those things i looked to christianity for in the first place: a sense of belonging and communion and brotherhood, a sense of purpose and destiny. this may sound overblown but to a degree, this was what it was all about. i would call them, u2; the positive rock band, but that would sell them short since they are so much more. they are artists, exercising and inspiring the imagination. so there is contradiction. it was good then but not now?

and the truth is, losing my faith was the best thing that ever happened to me and u2 played a role in that. through their work and their words, bono encouraged me to think for myself. it's true that i read nabakov's lolita because of sting's line in don't stand so close to me. i often read books because michael stipe said something about one that piqued my interest or some such thing. and bono did this as well. salman rushdie became one of my favorite writers in the world in part because bono mentioned supporting his cause, (and of course, bono supported his cause by putting him up at his house for the better part of a year.) i don't suppose i necessarily understood many of the implications of the satanic verses as they relate to islam but i know an epic novel when i read it. (it is also interesting that while living at bono's house, rushdie wrote the ground beneath her feet, a novel about an imaginary, indian rock band. rushdie wrote the words for the u2 song of the same name and i highly recommend the novel, which is likely rushdie's most entertaining and accessible [for westerners,] work.)

so perhaps it feels to me, upon listening to yahweh there in the ipay1 center, (whatever that is,) like i have grown and evolved but u2 has not? 40 sat better with me if for no other reason than nostalgia, but this entire record rankles me a little. rock and roll is about getting people moving, making them jump up and down and dance and flail about. every band i have ever known or seen who went soft was rejected after a season. (anyone remember journey?) there's a million of those groups. they weren't necessarily hard rock to begin with and this is not an endorsement of harder is better but it is the band that retains that ability to make someone get out of their seat and move around that thereby gains staying power. u2 always seemed to know that. with or without you was followed by bullet the blue sky. for every stay or if god will send his angels, (i know, i know...) there was zoo station and mofo. and the pop record all that you can't leave behind was a quality softening and it had up tempo songs. how to dismantle an atomic bomb seems to seek the same formula but it just misses and it misses most clearly on songs like yahweh.

u2's fate could be worse than the slide the stones took if they don't alter their course. yeah, i feel like darth vader in saying it, but those boys need to move towards the dark side. it's not like conjuring satan at their concerts is required but the fans they are attracting now are as fickle as can be and they're the same ones who bought records from brittany spears and ashley simpson. the encore on monday night sounded a tiny bit like a knell, signalling a descent into irrelevance or obscurity.

i left the show with two thoughts on my mind. one, if i could direct their next action, bono would discard the freaking costume and return to wearing jeans and t-shirts and portraying himself as a regular guy, and two, it sure is nice when you stumble on a new band like mars volta.

it is really a strange thing trying to write about u2. i seem to have wandered all over the place.

the latin from gloria? i think it means something like: in you mister/father, i exult, take pity on me. . .