true love waits

true love waits

i'll drown my beliefs, to have you be in peace

i'll dress like your niece, to wash your swollen feet

just don't leave, don't leave

i'm not living, i'm just killing time

your tiny hands, your crazy kitten smile

just don't leave, don't leave

and true love waits, in haunted attics

and true love lives, on lollipops and crisps

just don't leave, don't leave

just don't leave, don't leave

the first time i heard true love waits it was a warbly, bootleg recording. radiohead would bust the song out occasionally, tease audiences with this sickly sweet crooner of a tune, then just as quickly act as if it never happened and they had no idea what song people were talking about. (eventually they acknowledged the song's existence by releasing a live version on the 'i might be wrong,' ep.)

if you clicked on it above and listened however, you will know what i am talking about when i say 'true love waits,' is beautiful. when i heard it, all warbly and thom yorkey, falsetto spooning my ears with that chorus, "true love waits...don't leave...just don't leave..."

yeah, it's desperate but perfect.for me it arrived post any fantastical notions about fairy tale true love and all that but it served to remind me and revive the memory of those feelings and so on a nostalgic level it appealed to me anew. i can listen to it any time. it conjures children so deeply in love they could hurl themselves in front of a speeding train if denied. i miss that feeling in a way, though i would never return to it. still, i visited it every so often by listening to this song.

however today i learned of something called a true love waits pledge. the pledge is used by christian youth to affirm their faith and commitment to remaining chaste until marriage and it goes like this:

believing that true love waits, i make a commitment to god, myself, my family,
my friends, my future mate and my future children to a lifetime of purity
including sexual abstinence from this day until the day i enter a biblical
marriage relationship.

and as you may have guessed, i saw radiohead's 'true love waits,' a completely new light. now it seems to me the real meaning on commentary are not as the surface may suggest, that true love, real love, the meaningful pure love, waits, that it somehow knows itself and guards itself and waits out circumstances. no. rather it seems the idea that true love waits is commentary on the immaturity and perhaps even ignorance of chastity vows. obviously choosing not to have sex, at any age, is not immature, but choosing not to have sex because of mythology, be it belief in imaginary creatures or afterworld punishment or that a future relationship will somehow be soiled or sullied, is silly.

it was this article that got me to thinking about all of this and it is a truly interesting read.

brothers in a mine

i feel like holding my breath over and over and over until some miners are rescued, (preferably four,) from deep in the earth in west virginia. it could be my little act of fraternity. i hope they're alive. i hope they're doing everything they can to conserve breathable air. i hope there is more than one and they are together and they are taking heart in the spirit of humanity, in knowing that a tremendously calculated rescue effort is underway and in feeling the energy of millions of their species hoping and pulling in their minds for an outcome of life.

there is something about people trapped, such as in a mine. their lives probably ended a couple of days ago, or maybe a couple of hours ago, or maybe they're alive, huddled in a safety chamber, hoping. the terror of being trapped in a small space without much air, (to say nothing of the other necessities for human life,) along with the inability to know anything whatsoever is compelling. so many humans who typically struggle to agree on anything, are like-minded on this one. they're hoping against odds for life to prevail.

as it is 25 are dead. 25 men who were surely the salt of the earth, surely hard-working, colorful brothers and fathers and husbands and exes and coaches and pupils and friends and enemies and bosses and subordinates and strangers and neighbors, have deceased. they will not dig dirty coal from the ground ever again for the massey energy company.

it seems massey ceo don blankenship has not been a big proponent of safety in the face of slimmer profits. he has thrown a lot of money at lawmakers and been closely tied to a corrupt administration, which suggests he may be one of those millionaires who loves money so much he exemplifies the root of all evil. i hope this disaster, (an utterly ineffectual word if ever there were one,) changes him on a deep and personal level.

massey is a national flagship of union breaking, unfortunately, which is likely a factor in declining safety. (please rent the movie; matewan, for an understanding of the roots of the struggle between miners and corporations.)

i am somber tonight. i feel brothers. i feel them far away mourning and working to find and raise our other brothers. good luck-be strong.



i am sure it is dark as a grave tonight in the upper big branch mine. this song, spring hill mining disaster, written by ewan maccoll and peggy seeger but sung here by bono, (about the springhill mining disaster in nova scotia in 1958,) is poignant in both its lyrics and mood.

stability

i like the idea of overcoming odds and i am surprised by some of my outcomes.

once upon a time it was all the victory i needed to merely avoid heroin, keep from becoming a junkie. nowadays i find myself trying harder than ever to have a successful marriage, create a successful career. according to statistical data i recall hearing when i was a kid, i was supposed to do heroin. i think there is also demographic evidence suggesting i would have a high likelihood for divorce if married or maybe even that i would be a failure in such an endeavor or end up incarcerated.

one of the things i do not blog about is my relationship with my wife. that is not for public consumption, (not that anyone would particularly be interested.) what i will say is marriage is difficult with two small children, two years apart. it's a lot of work and includes the pressure of responsibility. it is a stark contrast, for most people, from life before children. having said that it is nice that rewards are all the sweeter in proportion to levels of difficulty.

i am focused on doing well by my children and so far, so good. there are things that could be better, but overall i feel like things have gone well and they will likely only get better.

my goal with them is to help keep as many options open to them as they wind toward adulthood, as possible. you see my theory is that as we grow up and age, possibilities fall away from us like shimmering mirages. perhaps a more precise way of putting that would be, as discipline fades, so do outcomes.

for example, let's say president of the united states and nuclear biophysicist are on the top tier of career outcomes. it may be accurate to say some outcomes such as these, can disappear from a child's realistic horizon as early as age five or six. i mean, if terra was eating poorly, taking in the sugary kid's cereals, if she did not get a good night's sleep, if we weren't reading to her regularly, (to say nothing of actual traumas some kids endure,) perhaps her ability to discipline herself, to develop an attention span, or to make complex connections could have already dropped to a level that makes this tier of career outcomes unattainable.

so when i ensure her diet, sleep pattern and reading mentoring, are kept in a range i deem acceptable, (important,) i am just trying to keep those possibilities, those outcomes, open and available to her. any choice will be hers. if she doesn't even go to college but chooses instead to marry and have children and stay home and raise her brood, i will love her just as much. but i have to help her have choices some day. the more, the better. that's my job.

she can choose not to be academic once she is an adult. until then, it would be very difficult for her. she can choose to live like a hermit avoiding human contact some day, but that would be impossible for her as a child because her mother and i are trying hard to help her have a healthy childhood, (filled with human interaction.) as an adult she will be free to choose not to maintain her physical fitness, but as a child, no chance. she will be strongly encouraged to engage in physical activities for the purpose of increasing her strength and agility, similarly so she can have more possibilities available to her when she becomes interested in making choices, in this case about activities she may want to pursue on a higher level.

faith was talking about class sizes, worrying that terra could metaphorically fall through the cracks. i responded saying it would be impossible for her with two present and engaged parents like us, in spite of any imperfections.

(i am having a little thing for a sentence with a comma and a little, extra, independent thought attached, lately. sorry.)

anyway, i never valued stability much in my life. what i needed in that way i took and expected. as a husband and a father i find myself embracing stability, thinking about it along with my health and insurance and investments, (and health insurance.) these changes in life of late were not so much unimaginable to me in my former life, (my single, carefree life,) as they were simply unimportant to me. i needed my family and i was pretty much forced to maintain those relationships, (this is to say i went to them and it was especially rare for them to come to me,) which i did and did not mind.

stability is king now. stability is the byproduct of loving my family and wanting the best for them and me. stability is the through-line in my values. stability is me walking home from the bar. stability is analyzing my childhood, (blogging about it even or writing in my journal,) and learning from it instead of self-destructing in alcohol and

irresponsibility. stability is my new nature.

why business?

i have been thinking a lot lately about what i like about business, (and how i ended up here.) the thing is, i actually have an aversion to business.

business is strategy. business is calculating as many metrics as you can possibly discover and define in order to leverage the forces they represent to your favor.

when i was kid i loved to play chess and stratego, so there is something about business that i enjoy. as i have worked in businesses and business environments, my aim has been to rise in the business world as high as i possibly can so that i can reach a position of influence and show a different way of conducting business. you see, i believe there is a different way. i believe there is a better way.

as it is, (in the world but particularly in our country,) business is fairly ruthless. capitalism is, in it's truest form and unchecked, an economic system that values profits above anything else. profits are more important and more of a consideration than state, than morality, than human harmony or any notion of brotherhood, than future generations, than mother earth, than family, than church or god. this is not to say there are not those who conduct business in a fashion that runs against the grain of capitalism's truest definition. (However, visionaries like ray anderson are few and far between.)

so how did i end up doing business? i love art.

in particular, i love film. film has power. it is extra sensory and it appeals to me on multiple levels. it makes me feel. it opens my mind. it brings a million other lives into my focus. in this way it is more important than electricity, (for those who may be dependent on it.) the end of central station put me in touch with more emotions and insights relevant to my life and to my education than high school. film, like the great novels, has taught me my path.

i love music. in particular rock music, classic rock, alternative rock, progressive rock, ambient, house, techno, pop, glam, (sometimes,) blues, jazz, bossanova, metal, punk, emo, groove, rap, folk, classical, opera, all that stuff. music moves me. it has the power to calm me or excite me. it adds.

additionally, i love just about every art form i have contacted. i have at one time or another envisioned myself as virtually every type of artist. that said, i have never appreciated the discipline of any art form, (well perhaps writing however, that's been a dirge of an affair thanks to maslow's hierarchy of needs,) at least not enough to dedicate myself to it.

my motivation and passion in this world is rooted in justice and humanism. i consider myself informed by the arts but i have endured in my relationship with business since stumbling into it at low level jobs for a couple of corporations, (and now a small business owner,) because of a belief that one must know the dragon before it can be slain. my greatest satisfaction would come from the realization one day that i have a made a difference in business, in how it is conducted, perhaps in some who conduct it inside and outside of my realm, inside and outside of my time. (points short of such lofty goals would also bring me great satisfaction.)

as an aside, an even greater aspiration would be to figure out how to win consensus on a large scale. i guess this is leadership. iconic leadership. the men who have accomplished this in the past are the men of history. to get people together around the idea that the influence of the masses could transform our world, our realities, in an incredibly short time, this idea powers my life.

if i conducted business in such a way as to hold humans at the center of my idea of success, if providing not only fair employment but the kind of employment that offers dignity and a level of prosperity that is commensurate with the talents, effort and dignity of the worker, represented my ideal outcome and my greatest satisfaction, i want a world where these ideals are prized.

if i ran a company that marketed itself in such a way... actually, if i nurtured the consumer who was willing to pay more for a thing because the company aspires to a set of agreeable values and embarks on a relationship with its clientele based on trust and marked by transparency, i could change the world. if my company heralded itself as the company with the slightly higher price but which maintains an average employee salary 20%, (hell, 12%,) above industry average, which does the very best it can by the environment and which practices a level of disclosure unprecedented in modern times. that company would immediately dry up and go bankrupt in today's business climate. however, if people agreed to pay extra to patronize that company, and if that company created a groundswell of support, made the ideas famous in a way the business model began to apply pressure to all businessmen to change their ways to compete or die, well, it's possible, (especially in our modern age of mass communication.)

i believe a company marketing itself in such a way it pleads for customers based on it's innate goodness and symbiosis with man, if it gained that trust by publishing itself in every way, well, an environment can be created in which companies compete with each other by outperforming each other in goodness. can you imagine that?! maybe not and isn't that a sad testament? we are capable of so much and yet, we are easily confused, (en mass.)

so quietly and discontentedly, i plod on in business. i don't know if perhaps i am a tragicomic figure. in many ways my path has been that of least resistance. my lack of discipline has limited my achievements and yet i have educated myself. my former insecurity about my self-education has recently been replaced by a peace associated with my understanding and my understanding of my station in life, (as it were.) outside of slightly long hours my quality of life is good, though it could be better. more importantly i want for a better quality of life for all people.

i want to work at a company where the employees work harder than those at most companies because they appreciate and are a part of the ethos of the company. that is to say they know they are paid more and appreciated more, they know that their jobs are less specialized and thereby of a higher quality than the former model. they know they are respected and treated fairly and so their output dwarfs that of the masses of men who would toil for companies of the practices of the past. they know that the people at the top of the company make more than those at the bottom but they know the gap is equitable.

i am going to continue to do business. in spite of the fact that i have found precious few kindred spirits in business, in spite of the fact that i tend to look soft as a manager, i am going to keep doing what i do, which is to live my own example and keep pressing on in the direction that represents my path.

chomsky trumps zirin and hitchens

if you have read my blog before you may know that i participate in a yahoo group called the sporthinkery. it is moderated by my good friend, bill gould. sportswriter dave zirin has been involved with the sporthinkery for some time even if his participation consists primarily of posting his 'edge of sports,' articles, (or his articles that appear in the nation.) (Click on the header to read dave's most recent article on christoper hitchens' broad attack on the winter olympics and all things sport in newsweek.) often times what i read on the sporthinkery compels me to write in to the group in response and occasionally my response seems worthy of a blog post...

it seems zirin may have had a thing for hitchens at one time and feels betrayed nowadays. personally, i can't stand hitchens and i think zirin has it right when he accuses him of "amputating with rhetoric." in spite of the fact that i enjoyed 'god is not great,' i found it to be far short of scholarly in terms of debunking the mythology of belief. rather, it was a fun romp through the foibles of so many belief systems.

what is more interesting about zirin's piece, however, is how he defends sport. it is as if billie jean king and muhammed ali and jackie robinson would not have existed as activist heroes were it not for sport. (personally, i think they would have but probably with different names. after all, martin luther king jr. was a preacher and not a celebrity or sports star. nor for that matter were most of the other prominent players in the civil rights movement or any other righteous movements for justice or peace or fair treatment.) it is nice that some sports stars stand up to be counted from time to time. i rooted for drew brees and the saints recently just because he had a moment like this. i love jim brown and john ameche and mahmoud abdul raouf and all of the others who speak up from time to time. (perhaps more importantly i can't stand the vacuous sports stars like tiger woods who reap huge rewards in terms of upward mobility, something that is less likely for an individual in the united states than just about any other first world country, and seem to instantly forget their roots, their working fathers and mothers, their neighbors, the working class.)

still, i could not help but wonder if zirin has ever seen or read noam chomsky's 'manufacturing consent,' wherein the sage of m.i.t. speaks of sport as that which occupies our minds and renders us impotent by means of activity as numbing and distracting agent as opposed to allowing us to demand the equality we deserve, (justice,) as a proletariat waging a class war. (of course as dennis kucinich recently pointed out, in this country we have already lost class warfare.

i don't feel guilty about my affinity and preoccupation with sports but i do recognize that my time could be better spent. in fact i have seen as much beauty in sport as can possibly exist. i have been as thrilled as is possible by miraculous outcomes. the human drama has transfixed me and i can never again engage at a level i once did. while i love sports that are new to me as if i were still a child, while i love hockey and even have a new favorite player in la kings defenseman drew doughty as if i was 12 again, (about the same age as doughty,) while i can be amazed ad-nauseum by the maneuvers of the greats on the soccer pitch, these twists and tricks that are so foreign to me, and such, my interest in the nba and mlb wanes a bit every year as it seems it should with any aging man. if my team is good i get closer, more interested, more aware. when they suck, (see the dodgers from the early 90s through two to three years ago,) i am bored and hold only a passing interest. i have friends too, who would belittle me, as if it is not my interest in sport that is falling away but rather my manhood and i am sad for them their immaturity and inability to grow and change.

as i get older i am increasingly interested in legacy, in leaving something good behind me. many of my friends would consider that sensibility absurd. i consider it ennobling. who knows what i can possibly leave behind me but i want to try and so as i negotiate my days i feel a simple happiness when i recognize my waning interest in sport and an increase in time i am able to spend trying to find ways to fight the powers that be. zirin and hitchens should just defer to chomsky on this issue. in this clip he talks specifically about sports, (as well as supermarket tabloids and astrology as that which is meant to dull the brain.) the message is clear, sports dull the brain. "sports," chomsky asserts, "is a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority."

iced mountains

dear coors,

please leave the device that is cold blue mountains off of your beer. it's insulting.

look, i know that you are merely creating an impression of value. i know that the raw ingredients in one of your beers costs pennies. even the mass produced glass bottles are only a few cents more. the dollar per you extract from me is something of a gouge but i am at peace with it. your massive profit margin is merely annoying.

all of your marketing efforts, like the blue mountains in case i am certifiably brain dead and cannot otherwise know if my beer is in fact, technically, or certainly, cold, add value, (you believe,) above and beyond the basic cost of the ingredients. the feature that is these cold activated images is your justification for charging a certain amount more for your beer.

i'd prefer you just charged me the amount and left the asinine white or blue mountains off the label. they just make me think you think i'm like, "duhhhh, yeah. these mountains are so cool, plus they could actually be handy in an ice chest when a warm six-pack has been added."

i don't want my wine-drinking friends to think i am a dumbass because i drink beer.

fear

no fear.

don't fear the reaper.

fear not.

fear and loathing.

fear the lord thy god.

fear. fear. fear.

fear [feer]

noun

a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.
concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.
reverential awe; esp. toward god.
that which causes a feeling of being afraid; that of which a person is afraid: cancer is a common fear.
-verb (used with object)
to regard with fear; be afraid of.
to have reverential awe of.
-verb (used without object)
to have fear; be afraid.

i can imagine no condition i disdain more than the state of fear. teaching my children to fear fear and fight fear and avoid fear and challenge fear is one of my primary responsibilities as a parent.

it is the single worst thing i have ever felt. moreover, it is easily the most stultifying feeling one can harbor. i've heard some parents consciously or subconsciously hope their children do not surpass them in certain ways, (i guess the ways that are most important to them?) perhaps they do not want to be outdone by their children from a severe insecurity. that very idea is abominable.

fear comes naturally in this world. as possibly the only species on the planet with self awareness, the only creatures who know we are dying, who understand the consequences of living, who must face down the fear of our own demise either sooner or later, we have a unique relationship with fear.

i am a-scurred, too. i am afraid of things so seriously that i will not even utter what they are for fear of giving them an upper hand. (i suppose it's that old mock the devil and he will flee thing.) fear is my worst me. any prejudices i ever had were born of fear. any childish beliefs came from a basic fear, a basic fear i was born with. when i was a child i was afraid of the darkness. i feared nightly. i was afraid of getting lost in downtown la after that happened to me once. i feared brutal stepdads. i was afraid of failure, (still am.) i was afraid of success. (yeah, still am that, too.) and so on...

if i want to be my best me, i recognize that the absence of fear is a basic starting point for me. i think it is for everyone, too. whatever scares should be debunked and demystified. if foolish consistencies are the hobgoblin of little minds, the most foolish consistency of all is the act of allowing fear to persist.

do you fear terrorism? are you afraid of bullies or ghosts? does the concept of a hell bother you? does cancer scare you? heart attack? impotence? old age? lost youth? traffic collisions? government conspiracies? random violence? getting caught? your dad? guns? your boyfriend's wife? the number 13? what is it? whatever it is i hope you vanquish it.

i think as we age our fears create our illnesses. whatever we fear that is able to gain some dominion over us leads to those ways in which we become twisted. maybe it leads to physical debilitation but what seems obvious is that fear leads to mental and emotional instabilities, which can in turn lead to real psychoses.

i think it is always important to be on one's guard from fears. for me to live a healthy life i think i must try hard to render my fears powerless, recognize them for what they are, deconstruct them, then proceed in the knowledge learned unafraid.

and so it is with my kids. i want them to be fearless. i want them to be respectful, but fearless. as it is i do not allow terra to be afraid. she suggested she was afraid of the dark at one time. she said she was afraid of monsters. she said she was scared of the noises outside at night. every time i heard something like that from her i scoffed. i explained it was natural to worry about those things, (and terra is certainly one who worries about new concepts,) but that ultimately we could know certain things about what scares us. when she feared the dark at bedtime i asked her if every morning she woke and everything was fine and she confirmed the truth in that statement. when she expressed her fear of earthquakes one night recently after seeing some images from haiti at school, as she cried over something that is actually worthy of some real concern, (concern, not fear,) i spoke to her of odds. she did not understand odds. so i appealed to her sense of trusting mommy and daddy to do everything humanly possible to keep her safe, which pacified her. since then the subject has come up a couple of times if briefly, which tells me she still has some fear about earthquakes but i feel like we're working on it. we are a team, her mother, mark, me and her. we are always at work on dispelling our collective fears. i am hopeful one day as i lay on my death bed she will be there, she will be brave and thereby show me she is prepared to endure without me, and she will console me and i will die in peace knowing full well that we are and have been dignified creatures.

i'll tell you one thing i am afraid of. i am afraid of terra and mark someday harboring many and sundry fears. as one who admits the influence of conditioning, i in no way think my children are immune from the maladies of the evening local news. rather i believe it is my daily duty, my life's work, my most noble charge to help them combat fears of all types. in this way, if i am successful in my small role in mark's and terra's sphere of influence, my babies can live healthy lives, daring greatly, perhaps failing from time to time but achieving too and accomplishing balance in their lives.

fdr said it. right? "there is nothing to fear but fear itself." respect-yes. but fear? no. it is a sad state, a bad way to spend one's life, every bit as unfortunate as poverty or physical debilitation.

what to read

i will be the first to admit i can't read everything but then, it is awfully positive that there is so much good stuff out there to read, (though it looks like a coffee cup on the sea compared to all the bad published word out there.)

the header above links to a glenn greenwald story from salon.com. i used to read salon regularly but for whatever reason i had not been reading it recently. i happened to check in today however, and was rewarded with this thoughtful piece by greenwald.

it is interesting how that works, too. years ago i read salon and talkingpointsmemo.com religiously. lately i have been reading firedoglake and alternet mostly. huffpo gets me intermittently. i read mark morford regularly. i read a few blogs. i used to read mediamatters regularly but probably haven't been there in six months. great site, but who has the time? i get my sports from yahoo, espn or edgeofsports.

anyways, i wanted to share the article and the sense of pleasant surprise i got from visiting a site that had been out of my rotation a little bit.

should obama be a one-term president?

it is certainly worth considering forcing timothy geithner to step down as treasury secretary but it would also be reasonable right now to call for the resignation of barack obama.

democrats, (and probably republicans too, for that matter,) tend to think in terms of eight year blocks once they get a president elected. that has been a sound strategy too, considering the effectiveness of incumbent candidates. however it is time for change.

the democratic party, (and by that i do mean democrats,) could unseat barack obama after one term and elect another democrat president, perhaps even a more progressive, less corporatist candidate than barack obama. perhaps dennis kucinich could win, as the populist real deal. (or how old is ralph nader these days?)

please click on the header and read the bloomberg news story. the secretary of treasury of the united states, then in the capacity of head of the new york federal reserve, advised aig to hide information from the american public in order to get away with paying full price on credit default swaps, which in turn cost american taxpayers $62.1 billion. indeed, it was a back door bailout brokered by the new york federal reserve, geithner's organization. $62.1 billion taxpayer dollars?

i'll be honest, i am not sure i am advocating for unseating obama at this point, but i certainly respect the idea. not only did he appoint geithner to this vastly important cabinet position of tremendous power, but he had the best tools of investigation, to understand geithner's experience and ethos, money could buy. moreover, it is important for obama to be responsible for his decisions as president, and geithner's crime is egregious to such a degree, canning the guy who rewarded him and took advice from him, which suggests incompetence or worse, would be a revolutionary act of forsaking partisan politics in favor of simply exercising the collective power of the masses to act righteously as it concerns a matter of the utmost importance.

the federal reserve bank issues american currency and houses gold owned by some americans but also some saudis and kuwaitis and everyone else, but it is not a part of our government and it is ultimately beholden to its owners. as head of the new york federal reserve timothy geithner wielded a great amount of power, essentially on behalf of the investment bankers who own the new york fed.

$62.1 billion. i have to say that number over and over because it is hard to imagine that amount of money. it's huge. in response to the bloomberg news story, the white house has commented to say the advice the ny fed gave aig to not report the credit default swaps happened at a level lower than geithner and he was unaware of this advice and therefore not responsible. (where have we heard that before?) geithner's bank told aig to lie so that aig could use the money it received from taxpayers to pay off gamblers. that is unforgivable and geithner's bank facilitated the heist and his head should certainly roll. $62.1 billion. the fact obama prefers to dismiss this as if the "geithner was unaware," defense is legitimate is abhorrent and oddly in contrast to obama's m.o. otherwise. typically he accepts responsibility for everything and talks about how the buck stops with him.

former new york governor eliot spitzer has been doing his best to call for the release of aig's emails, of which there are plenty. since the american people own aig, we certainly have a right to see those emails, which will likely reveal more info about who swindled the american people and how. we should all stay aware of this story and push for release of those emails.

as for obama, his behavior is distressing. we voted him in because we believed he would be different in so much as he would not play typical politics by advocating cover ups and kowtowing to the corporations. lately his behavior has been disappointing. if i believed democrats could be of one mind in refusing to nominate him for a second term and if i had faith we would take the high road is defending the decision and nominate someone like dennis kucinich to replace him from a position of strength, i could easily go along with that plan.

zealotry

umar farouk abdulmutallab was lonely and depressed. he was an adolescent and a religious zealot. his posts to an islamic message board reveal a zealous child who is ill-equipped to reconcile the mixed messages of the world. on christmas he set out from amsterdam on a flight bound for detroit intent on killing hundreds of people and himself.

here is something we should all agree on. a child with fundamentalist beliefs is dangerous.

i was a fundamentalist child once upon a time. i feel lucky to have emerged from that time with my sanity.

i accepted jesus into my heart on february 23rd of 1976. i was 10. it was a sunday evening and i was visiting bethany baptist church in west covina to see an end times preacher who my aunt and uncle (guardians,) were excited to see. (dr howard estep's organization lives on.) i had attended calvary baptist church in la puente at that time but when my family moved to covina we switched to what i would call a more actively fundamentalist denomination of crazy which was the assemblies of god.

in the covina assembly of god church i was exposed to, (and embraced,) not only the literal interpretation of the bible, (contradictions be damned,) but also the practices of speaking in and interpretation of tongues and anointing with oil. yes, we believed the literal words of the bible. jesus really was the son of god. along with the holy spirit the three comprised the holy trinity, an entity separate but apart, wholly beyond human understanding, (yet expounded on often on sunday mornings,) and god. yes miracles happened. yes, jesus rose from the dead after being crucified. yes, gay was evil and worthy of damnation. yes, women were weaker vessels.

in addition to 1-3 visits to church weekly and the camps and outings and all that, i attended a christian high school my junior and senior years and i attended an assemblies of god college for a year, too. i was a young zealot. i led peers of mine to the lord even kneeling with a friend on his porch to lead him through the sinners prayer at the tender age of 11 or 12.

i had no need of literature that was not the bible or not somehow related to the bible. i needed little policing in those days. in my mid-20s my girlfriend worked for the wycliffe bible translators-we went to church weekly and practiced abstinence. (for both of the years we were together!?!) i suppose that relationship ended because she was attuned to the fact that i was questioning my faith, which of course is anathema to fundamentalism, and thus ended those years for me even if it was gradual.

the point is; i was in those days of such severe belief in something so utterly devoid of any proof or basis in reality, i was dangerous. i truly was dangerous. in those days, when i was a young republican, when ronald reagan's dishonesty was pointed out to me, i thought the end justified the means. that is dangerous.

i read an article today in which a columnist pointed out the absurdity of some people believing in god sans any proof or evidence while also denying global warming in the face of melting glaciers of evidence. isn't that poignant?

i can relate to abdulmutallab's zealotry too, because i was critical of those less zealous or less committed than myself. when i started drinking beer, (or wine coolers more likely,) i woke up on saturday or sunday mornings with major guilt. when on the following friday night my friends suggested we drink alcohol again, something inside of me raged. it was this hypocrisy that ultimately drove me from christianity. my best friend rationalized his drunkeness by conjuring the hebrew word for sin and saying that it was essentially an archery term meaning, 'missing the mark.' the idea was that i should not be so bothered, god hated the sin but no the sinner. for my part i went into the act, (in this case of drinking,) knowing full well what i was doing and even how i would feel the next morning. in short, i felt like i had no excuse and the rationale that god was cool with it because hey, i was merely missing the mark. no big deal. my arrow was still on the board-it just wasn't a bullseye. well, that did not work for me. in retrospect, it is kind of funny how hypercritical i was of myself considering how opposite i am to that now and how forgiving i am of humanity at large.

this is where my ascent from christianity began. at some point i realized how wrong-headed it was to decry my nature, or more precisely to feel guilty based simply on my nature. it was not wrong of me to want to seek an altered state of being through alcohol. that was as natural as growing up. i could go on and on about how and why i got out, (and i certainly have in my own journals,) but i won't bore you with all those details right now.

the thing is society needs to get together on this idea. we need to recognize that fundamentalists of all stripes are certainly crazy, if only temporarily. (in fact i question the veracity of any fundamentalist over 40. anyone over 40 has lived long enough to where they should have enough life experience to have recognized the foolishness of their youth and turned from it. my friends who adhere to their fundamentalism post 40 seem to me to be in denial, choosing a life ensconced in the comfort of a familiarity they have built up and nurtured for so many years. it may even be they are mentally ill in as much as they are incapable of turning from their belief system.)

"if in the last few years you haven't discarded a major opinion or acquired a new one, check your pulse. you may be dead."

-gelett burgess

Happy 3rd Birthday, Mark Dylan James!

this is mark's pre-school class singing happy birthday to him first in english then in mandarin. terra skipped over from her kindergarten class and joined in the singing and can be seen right behind mark.

happy birthday little guy. december 18th.

conyers vs. obama

i get it that a lot of people do not want to criticize barack obama. i think it is yet another byproduct of the bush administration. (bush was so bad, so abhorrent really, such an affront to common decency and the values of most americans and our founding fathers, that the ascendancy of obama brought hope in messianic proportions.) that said, the president's actions deserve serious scrutiny and john conyers has been delivering.

for those who may not be familiar with john conyers, he is one of the longest tenured members of the house of representatives. (22 terms. democrat, 4th district-michigan.) more importantly, he was in selma, alabama on freedom day. conyers was on nixon's enemies list. rosa parks served on his staff. he voted on the articles of impeachment against nixon. he appealed to the bush administration to answer to the accusations of the downing street memo. he authored 'what went wrong in ohio: the conyers report on the 2004 presidential election.' the list goes on and on and the point is, john conyers is a patriot, a friend of the common man and a national treasure, and if he is critical of the president, his accusations deserve real consideration.

the article, (which is linked in the header,) appeared on thehill.com two days ago and details obama's call to conyers to ask him to stop publicly demeaning him. based not only on the details of an article and a disagreement between political heavyweights but on the political facts and circumstances of late, obama is appearing more and more to be a politician. (perhaps a very good politician but a politician all the same.) conyers, for his part, seems principled.

it is worth mentioning that conyers played a key role in getting barack obama elected. for that obama expects loyalty. for that, conyers expects justice. he expects obama to be the president of "yes we can," and all the rhetoric of his campaign.

don't get me wrong. in 2012 i fully expect to vote for obama. but he is who he is and while i have had an idea for some time about who and what he is, it is time for all of those who fell in love with him in 2007 and 2008 to wake up, (and get back to work if they want "real change we can believe in.")

this is barack obama. he made a number of campaign promises on health care most notably that all of the debates and negotiations on reform would be televised so the american people could see the process. obama clearly broke that promise. (it was a good idea too. seeing it would have been educational and it would have created accountability.)

on health care, obama, like all of the democrats who have chosen to compromise, are simply wrong. (either that or they are in cahoots with the health insurance industry.) so many of these democrats are running around these days singing the praises of this new, public option-less plan because they see how many people, primarily between 55-65, will now have coverage and they think it is a boon. they are, however, missing the point. the idea behind single payer and the public option was to create a public, accountable entity to compete against the health insurance corporations of today. it is a simple fact that this new option would effectively kill health insurance as we know it today. instead of paying a ceo $700 million for five years of work, (as united healthcare did,) they would have to compete or die and competing would mean an epic paradigm shift.

including those who will be included by this new expansion of medicare is not a bad thing but it does nothing to address the real problem and obama as well as all those democrats should know that. i think they must think that by actually getting affordable coverage to more people than would have likely been affected by a public option they are doing the better good but that is just not the case. the better good would be to get a public option in place that could and would operate so efficiently the masses would clamor for inclusion. instead, by merely creating a larger welfare program they are playing into the hands of the same people who will call this plan a horrible mistake a few years hence. the calls to trim this new plan will be loud and shrill.

instead of showing government at its most efficient, this program will merely be a tax burden. the health care industry will have made millions upon millions of dollars in the time it takes us to figure this out and then, when we do figure it out, they will blame government for trying to interfere in the marketplace. they will paint the health care companies as efficient, and medicare with its couple of million new includees as a burdensome bureaucracy and yet another example of welfare incentivizing people to freeload on the backs of the hard-working americans. it’s the same old story.

this pbs frontline special on health care in five major democracies around the world, by showing how these other countries handle health care and some of their motives for arriving at their current systems, is the most damning thing i have witnessed as it concerns our system here in the united states. at one point in this program an official in taiwan talks about how as that emerging economy faced the decision of how to set up their health care they decided to study some of the best systems from around the world. the american reporter asks him if our system was one of the ones they studied to which he responded, no-we considered that the model of everything we did not want. (taiwan has great health care, by the way.)

so, obama and so many democrats are now selling us all short, allowing the healthcare conglomerates to go on gouging us for who knows how much longer because of a belief that getting health care to a number of people who do not currently have it somehow makes losing to the millions upon millions of dollars healthcare companies have thrown into this battle all worth it. american below the age of 55 are screwed. we will have things in this new system just as they are today. there will be no difference for this large class of people whatsoever.

this is barack obama. he seemed to believe at one point that the aclu lawsuit demanding the release of photos of guantanamo detainees was important but he changed his mind. (it bugs the hell out of me when government officials suggest that i cannot handle truth.)

this is barack obama, (accepting the nobel peace prize.) i was in favor of him receiving it even if i recognized that this too was a reaction to the departure of the previous administration from the world stage. did obama deserve the award? no. was it nice the nobel committee chose him to receive it? absolutely. the sad irony is that receipt came just about a week after he announced a military buildup in afghanistan. perhaps in an attempt to justify the united states' war effort in afghanistan, obama said:

the concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when
it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self
defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians
are spared from violence.

by these standards our war in afghanistan is certainly not just. it is not a last resort nor is it self defense. our stated mission is to root out a terrorist organization that has been known to seek refuge in parts of afghanistan. in fact we are not at war with afghanistan. al qaeda, as some number of terrorist individuals, may or may not be in afghanistan but it is not as if there is a front line in this war from which we can see footage of the firefight on television. the mission is actually kind of a joke, as if every malcontent in the arab world can be rooted out. the question of proportion will be compared to 9/11 but in terms of firepower and training, (to say nothing of the idea of uniformed soldiers aligned and amassed against an enemy hiding out in homes at dinner tables amidst family or in caves in remote mountains.) i think our soldiers do their best to spare civilian casualties but i also know that it doesn't always work out that way. more than 1,000 civilian deaths occurred in afghanistan just in the first six months of 2009.

while obama's rhetoric was typically moving and succinct, the fact this war he inherited and has since escalated does not meet any of the criteria he mentioned above, seems lost on him.

so why would i expect to vote for him? i guess it is because i am a realist. i know that no democratic challenger is actually going to win the nomination over him and so, supporting one of those candidates merely serves to weaken obama's candidacy when he faces a republican challenger in the general election. am i opposed to even considering a republican candidate? mostly. i mean, the republican party is made up of a wealthy class who sees government as the enemy and the people as so many ne'er do wells like ayn rand's masses in 'atlas shrugged.' the policies this group brings to the party are harmful to the masses. there is also a large, fundamentalist religious element in that party. they believe jesus is about to return to rapture his adherents into the clouds and damn everyone else to hell. why would i trust someone like that to run my government? no, the republican party is a bad, ugly joke.

and those are my choices. that is the american two-party system. it is that bleak. my candidates: ralph nader, dennis kucinich, bernie sanders, hell, john conyers, these men are unelectable. they could not raise the amount of corporate money to actually compete in an american presidential election. it is a simple as that.

so be reasonable, fall out of love with barack obama as john conyers has. agitate against his bad decisions and laud his good ones but recognize that barack obama represents a great deal of good but that at the same time, he is compromised. he is beholden to the corporations who lined the pockets of his campaign. if you think that does not drive at least some of his decisions, you are foolish.

jb

in the nearly 12 years i worked with him jb always worked early hours, typically arriving well before the sun. he had a massive chest and large biceps and he was always in great shape. at 16 years my senior, jb was prolly 45 when i met him and 57 when i moved on from the work place we shared.

i admired john. he was a lady's man-chicks flocked to him. he had that strong, silent thing going for him. he was beloved at work. he was an institution of a man. he worked hard to fulfill his duties and do a good job.

i used to imagine john's life away from our office. he lived in inglewood, i think. i believe his dad lived with him or if that was not the case, he was nearby and john saw him often. john had kids who were adults, a daughter who made jb a grandfather and a son who was a basketball star.

john must have woke around 3am every day. i know he lifted weights every morning. maybe that was 3:30-4:30am. Then he got ready for work, drove across la to pasadena and began giving customer service at 6am. he got to leave the office around 2:45pm and probably raced back down the 110 past the coliseum and towards hollywood park to his home.

from time to time john would mention little details about dates he had. there was a woman at work, (not one of the lookers on john's dance card,) who got so angry with john at one point she made a big scene in the call center and held a grudge for a long time. i think she was unstable and harbored some false notions about her relationship with john. for his part i guess john was kind of a love-'em-and-leave-'em type of man.

he wrote poetry and had books upon books filled with love poems. strictly speaking, i did not love his poetry, what i read of it, but i loved the fact that he wrote poetry. john was a gentle giant. (only a fool would have messed with him though.)

ultimately, what impressed me the most about john, (and i think this must be true of most everyone who knows or knew john,) was his dignity.

john was a quiet and proud man. he always walked tall, made eye contact with others, offered a friendly handshake or even a hug to his friends and acquaintances, shared in their joy and travails, laughed easily, consoled those who suffered, personified warmth and maintained his post amidst the people.

john is very much alive today, lest you get the wrong idea. it's just that i haven't seen him in a long time. i used to see jb about 250 days every year. he was like family to me, (you know?) it is not hyperbole to say i loved this man. i remember seeing him away from the office once at a little party in rosemead one of our cute, little 20-something girls was having. i was so plussed to see john away from the office-he was the first person i walked up to.

here's the thing. you see someone, like john, five days per week, 250-odd days per year, and at some point you can't help but take the relationship for granted. i mean, you have a genuine affinity, a real friendship, but if it is of the ilk where it seems to exist only at work, (this is to say you do not communicate away from the office,) when you walk away from the job you seem to walk away from john. it's never intentional but it is similarly unavoidable. the names of people i adored but walked away from over the years because life happens, because nothing is static, because we are all bodies in motion after all, because our nature of complexity demands that we move and move and move and in the movement is absence. in the movement is all that lays ahead and all that is left behind. in the movement are connections, near-misses and the abyss. and the names of those people are legion.

the names of those people are tubs and victor and sid and matt and oscar and eric and sully and kenneth and rudy and kim and kathryn and rosa and alla and yeah, so many more.

i miss john, just like i miss the others, only more because john and i were together a long time. whatever was going on at work in those days there was always something comforting about having big john sitting back there in the corner of the call center. he was like the protector of the entire joint. and i am curious of who i work with today will be my enduring, everyday friends, (because we have enough common ground to propel us into a real and active friendship,) and who, by contrast will be like john to me, perfect in their distance and inability to draw the ire that visits those who are most familiar.

john is and always was a dignified man. what better thing can be said about a man? i carry him with me everywhere i go. i am proud to have known him and wish him well always.

pitchman

bono's brilliance, what makes him a timeless artist of our age on a par and quite possibly beyond john lennon and bob dylan, is in his manipulation of image, his mastery of not only finding what he is looking for but also in choosing the right path to reach those goals. u2 has always courted the masses, after all.

u2 has never shown any interest in narrowing their audience. rather, they have gone to great pains to be inclusive, to gain accessibility and to establish their myth, (if you will,) by sheer math. and not to belittle or discount the edge, adam or larry, but u2 is bono. u2 would have us believe u2 is bono and the edge, with a great rhythm section, but as an admirer and follower of u2 for the last 27 years it is clear bono wields the greatest influence on the acts of the band.

the fact that bono seemed to seek legacy through volume does not disqualify him from being a great artist. his poetry, his attention to detail, his imagination and forethought, his voice, his magnetism, his generosity and caring, his scholarship, his choices, they have all made u2.

if the beatles arrived and laid down the prototypes of all styles within rock and roll, (if helter skelter really was the first punk rock sound and if yellow submarine did define psychedelia and i want to hold your hand launched pop and rocky raccoon became quintessential folk ballad,) u2 proved nothing if not that they could not duplicate those prototypes whatsoever. their song craftsmanship on their first two albums is amateurish, even though it makes up for deficiencies in other ways and areas.

on war they showed growth in melody while continuing to struggle with form. sunday bloody sunday may not have been a rebel song but the confusion came from the war march feel of it. what was strange was that they seemed to be straining to master the billboard hit and when they missed that mark, their courage and sincerity came off as endearing. finally, with new year's day they were able to produce a driving hook but then came the unforgettable fire, an album called "ethereal," by the critics of the day in spite of its single, pride (in the name of love,) eschewing accessibility in favor of an earnest message to the masses.

how did u2's appeal expand so consistently in their early years? it wasn't craft. yes, edge's guitar work improved and the band was often strong. bono's voice was phenomenal even while his poetry and songwriting were still coming up to speed. but in an age of duran duran and culture club, at a time when the clash seemed to shun the mainstream along with talking heads and others, while the big bands of the day, the arena rockers, were killing themselves with formula, and john lennon was toying with media, u2 clicked on demographic segments with lyrics such as on october's tomorrow:

who's coming back? he's coming back. i believe. jesus is
coming!

this positive message along with bono's voice turned many on to the band. when he sang in latin on gloria it was like he was making church cool and for those who spent an ample amount of time in church in those days, u2 made a perfect standard bearer. reading the early biographies and considering the band's own fundamentalism and participation in the shalom group bible study, helped many to identify with them then just as the same concept works for a whole new generation of listeners in the new century.

if u2 was a professional athlete, credentials for the hall of fame would already be set. the volume of sales year over year over the last 30 years is phenomenal. when the joshua tree was the biggest record in the world back in 1987 it would have been unlikely to predict the band would be able to sustain a place of relevance and major league sales for every succeeding album. still, rattle and hum sold in 1989 even if it was panned by critics.

achtung baby is arguably the band's best effort. on that record u2 can be seen in their prime, still young and rock and roll, citizens of the world navigating the realm of rock stars in new and interesting ways, connecting their art to that of david wojnarowicz on the one video, (depicting the aids crisis as similar to the fate of buffalo driven off cliffs by hunters, doomed, hopeless and plunging to death,) writing songs from the perspective of judas after having read a similar book of poetry, recording in places like berlin at a time when the wall was crumbling in an effort to be inspired by the time and feel the energy of a great movement. achtung baby was simply a bad-ass album.

next they seemed put off or perhaps frightened by their success. it was as if they felt like they needed to find inventive ways to be inaccessible while maintaining a new found hipness. in interviews in the early '90s u2 can be heard referencing the industrial bands like nitzer ebb and skinny puppy, and their sound on 1994's zooropa was similarly influenced. bono's poetry was sharp and arresting in contrast to the sound that was at times pretty, such as on 'stay,' but mostly off putting. even 'lemon,' a song with some of the best lyrics bono ever put to paper, seems like a tug of war. beneath bono's campy falsetto, edge chants a chorus:

a man makes a picture, a moving picture, through the light projected he can
see himself up close.

the lyrics are interesting but in some ways at odds with the music.

midnight is where the day begins

and there it is. beneath the experimentation and the disco and un-cool, there is a u2 lyric as proverb. midnight is where the day begins, is a metaphor. when things are at their darkest or bleakest, things can only get brighter. (this is a theme bono revisited in his writing several times over the years, perhaps most poignantly on 'all that you can't leave behind's,' stuck in a moment.)

next came 'pop.' in spite of the name and the modern techniques used in the studio, (looping, pedal effects, etc.) the lyrics proved bono's continuing progression. please is in fact a plea by bono to both sides involved in "the troubles," in northern ireland, to please get up off their knees and resolve their differences. leaving aside the album's opener, discotheque, (and perhaps miami,) 'pop,' is a heavy record.

as the new century arrived u2 finally decided to return to the mainstream with 'all that you can't leave behind.' dedicated u2 fans liked 'pop,' so for them the idea of a mainstream record was not necessarily welcome. however, the substance was there as usual. u2 had not only mastered the pop hook, they figured out how to pair it with insightful, meaningful lyrics and a brand of positivity uncommon to rock and roll. beautiful day is as anthemic as any of their early songs, (sunday bloody sunday, new years day,) but instead of being a tragedy or a struggle peculiar to one country, beautiful day is so universally accessible it ends up sounding like the national anthem for the planet.

u2 did not seem all that rock and roll on 'all that you can't leave behind.' they were nice, older rock stars, but the music kicked ass. it was listenable, catchy, at times driving and at other times artsy, ultimately it defied any critic who might pigeonhole u2 as irrelevant by virtue of their age or craftsmanship. nearly 10 years after it stands as the height of their careers even if 'achtung baby,' is preferred.

'how to dismantle an atomic bomb,' came next and while sales dipped, the dip was made slight by u2's affiliation with the apple corporation. u2's brand was advertised alongside apple's in a million-dollar media blitz in yet another example of the band's trailblazing nature. in years gone by such an affiliation would have been seen as some sort of sellout but u2 appeared by the ads to be endorsing apple and yet, they appeared in the ads for free. in other words, their compensation was in advertising, which was slick.

the affiliation for its part was typical u2. they chose apple carefully, for their ethos perhaps more than for their product. this affiliation was not unlike u2's affiliation with amnesty international in the '80s. both partnerships padded their fan base. from the advertising perspective, vertigo's "uno, dos, tres, catorce!", became the most memorable line from an ad campaign in the new millennium.

and now that 'no line on the horizon,' has disappointing sales numbers, it is obvious u2's arc is in decline. it's nothing to be ashamed of. the rolling stones's arc too, declined. what is actually more interesting is how long the band was able to stave off decreased sales, how long they were able to be relevant.

the band's extracurricular activities may not be for the purpose of promoting album sales or even keeping the band relevant in what has to be considered mid-life for men and more like the ancient years for a rock band, but they have played a role. bono was time magazine's man of the year in 2005, (along with bill and melinda gates.) his involvement with the one organization, data, and other organizations engaged in charitable work over the years has steeled his reputation as the earnest rock star who puts his time and effort where his mouth is and gains unprecedented results.

to discount u2 or bono is foolish. his place, like theirs, in the pantheon of rock's elite is guaranteed. as an individual of great accomplishment, bono's personal legacy is similarly secure.