Laurie's still going strong...
...even without a face lift.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
What Lady Gaga Is Not and Never Will Be:
An artist. But here's the real deal:
Laurie's still going strong...
...even without a face lift.
Laurie's still going strong...
...even without a face lift.
Concurrencies
Yesterday, as I lay on my bed reading the novel, Solar, by Ian McEwan (a very, very funny, relevant book), I could see my TV (turned on, but on mute) over the top of the book; and, at a certain point the action of an episode of Minute to Win It caught my attention. It was the end of the show, the last challenge for one teen-aged girl, whose teen team stood back in unbearable, anxious hopefulness and joy, while she attempted her winning feat——to make two towers of stacked soda cans, which were standing on a table, side by side, into one tower. She tried hard, almost balancing her one tower, but, alas, the thing wobbled and collapsed—thus, she lost. Oh! The sorrow! The shame! The disappointment!
Concurrencies: While I read my book, America is distracted by the likes of Minute to Win It, America's Got Talent, American Idol, The Next Top Model, whoever is "trending now" on Yahoo (who are those people, anyway?), etc., etc, while another kid with no future in America joins the military, where perhaps he might find himself in Afghanistan forced to witness his buddies murder innocent civilians, forced onto a kill team, forced to commit atrocities, forced into a second, third, fourth deployment; that is, while we play, a "war on terror" goes on in our name, and our nation crumbles into further corruption and degradation, a nation with as many separate, distinct identities —faces— as a schizophrenic on crack. I don't know, but are we insane, or what?
An article at Common Dreams.org tells us about the "new face of war." We can now go in and assassinate whomever we please, violate whatever country's sovereignty we wish to. Where is this going? Do we think we can keep doing this and not inspire the ultimate in blowback—a nuclear attack on American soil itself? Do the masters of war forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, or, do they have a death wish? It appears to be the latter.
(This post inspired by Natural Lefty's post at thomhartmann.com., where you can see my unedited version of the above.)
Concurrencies: While I read my book, America is distracted by the likes of Minute to Win It, America's Got Talent, American Idol, The Next Top Model, whoever is "trending now" on Yahoo (who are those people, anyway?), etc., etc, while another kid with no future in America joins the military, where perhaps he might find himself in Afghanistan forced to witness his buddies murder innocent civilians, forced onto a kill team, forced to commit atrocities, forced into a second, third, fourth deployment; that is, while we play, a "war on terror" goes on in our name, and our nation crumbles into further corruption and degradation, a nation with as many separate, distinct identities —faces— as a schizophrenic on crack. I don't know, but are we insane, or what?
An article at Common Dreams.org tells us about the "new face of war." We can now go in and assassinate whomever we please, violate whatever country's sovereignty we wish to. Where is this going? Do we think we can keep doing this and not inspire the ultimate in blowback—a nuclear attack on American soil itself? Do the masters of war forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, or, do they have a death wish? It appears to be the latter.
(This post inspired by Natural Lefty's post at thomhartmann.com., where you can see my unedited version of the above.)
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Cirque du Soleil, Quidam: the Art of Wholeness
You can have your bloviating intellectuals, your politicians, your fat CEO’s; I want none of those—give me just one Cirque du Soleil performance, such as the one we saw yesterday, Quidam, and I am convinced we deserve to be here, after all.
No doubt, I was seduced, transfixed; no doubt there was something familiar there in all of it too—from the appearing and reappearing central icon, the Magrittesque Quidam —headless figure in an overcoat, umbrella opened above, bowler hat in hand— to the roaming groups of dehumanized and vaguely threatening figures in white biohazardish suits (Chiennes Blanche), to the long processions of grief-laden slaves (my impression), the lost-and-longing airplane man, and, overall, a little girl’s dream of life, love, fascination, and play, all of it resonating with truth. One thing is certain—Quidam is art, where one finds wholeness—a balance of male and female, light and dark, dread and hope, grief and joy, body and soul. You leave the theater simply glad for your life...unless you are a six-year-old whose daddy, on the way out, had just —unknowingly— trashed the popcorn tub you were planning on making into a house...in which case, you are boiling mad and not likely to forgive him for at least an hour. ; )
Coincidentally, the little girl character in Quidam is named Zoë.
Thank you, Julie and Steve, for such a wonderful gift—tickets to Quidam, San Diego.
Open Letter to My Congressman, Brian Bilbray, California District 50
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. — Buckminster Fuller
Dear Mr. Bilbray,
As a father and grandfather, you take pride in the responsibility of protecting your children and grandchildren from harm. I assume you would never do anything to put your loved ones at unnecessary risk. By the same token, as a U.S. Congressman, you take pride in protecting your constituents from harm. I trust you would never knowingly do anything that would put us at risk.
I also trust, therefore, you want to be aware of the consequences of ignoring threats to the lives and health of your constituents. You would not wish to mislead us with regard to facts that may put us at risk, knowing that the best protection is prevention. Thus, I am sure you, as a guardian of our security, would want to be aware of any realities that might concern our health and safety. Certainly, you would never dismiss such concerns with foolish bravado.
In your response to my concerns regarding nuclear power, however, you said the following about the San Onofre nuclear power plant: “...the seawall created to repel tsunamis in San Onofre measures 30 feet high compared to the one protecting the power plant in Japan that was only 10 feet high.” Mr. Bilbray, with all due respect, that statement is just plain wrong. First, Japan’s seawalls were 10 meters high, not feet; that’s almost 33 feet for Japan’s seawalls; yet such seawalls were not high enough to withstand the tsunami that hit Japan, which was estimated by some at approximately 23 meters—76 feet high.*
Furthermore, according to Gil Alexander, a spokesman for the San Onofre plant's operator, Southern California Edison, the seawall at San Onofre is 25 feet —not 30 feet**, as you stated in your response— and so, clearly, it is an inadequate barrier, given the reality of tsunami science. You also did not mention that the San Onofre plant was designed to withstand a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, while the quake that hit Japan was a 9.0 quake. Nor did you mention that the plant in San Onofre was built 42 years ago, or that the geological fault most likely to directly threaten San Onofre lies about 5 miles offshore.
* http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20110314/102025.shtml
* http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/03/18/11/japan-tsunami-was-least-23-metres-high-report
* http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/23/height-estimate-japans-tsunami-wave-tops-70-feet/
** http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/san-onofre-nuclear-plant-can-withstand-quakestsunamis-officials-say.html
Sir, given the facts of Japan’s nuclear disaster —including the underestimation by nuclear engineers of the hazards and potential for catastrophe, as well as the deadly pollution of plutonium, radioactive iodine and cesium now contaminating Japan itself— and given the scientific facts, from the toxic pollution of uranium mining to that of spent fuel storage, your statement, “Nuclear power is an essential part of our domestic, clean energy mix” seems breathtakingly blind to reality. Nuclear power cannot in any way be rationalized as a part of a “clean energy mix.” There is nothing clean about it. To think otherwise is simply to ignore scientific fact:
You also said, “Nuclear generated electricity avoids almost 650 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the United States.” This is may be true; however, the argument is a red herring—the proper comparison is between nuclear energy and green, 21st century, renewable energy, such as solar and wind technologies. These technologies will avoid both the deadly pollution of dirty nuclear and dirty coal.
Clearly, what we need to do, if we are to survive and progress as a species, is to do as Buckminster Fuller advised—leave 19th and 20th century energy technologies behind, and move forward toward 21st century energy technologies.
You said, “I believe that believe that science, not fear should drive our energy policy and our environmental policy.” I would respectfully suggest that “science” can be used to promote most any position one cares to support; to assume that the opposition to nuclear power is not based on science is plainly incorrect. Fear, as well, can be used as a motivator, as we have seen with regard to the “war on terrorism;” even though the threat to human life and security posed by nuclear power is every bit as real as the threat of Al Queda, it is downplayed. This begs a serious and valid question—who is more irrationally fearful, the citzen who objects to living near a nuclear power plant with the potential to render an entire city uninhabitable for hundreds, if not thousands, of years; or powerful entities who fear the consequence of losing profit should nuclear power be phased out?
In summing up, your response said, “I look forward to the full report on the Fukushima Daiichi Plant disaster so that we can ensure that all current and future nuclear power plants are as safe as possible.”
Mr. Bilbray, if what we already know about the disaster in Japan is not enough to begin phasing out nuclear power —specifically in your district, the San Onofre plant, which was built long ago near two earthquake faults— no further information, no disaster will ever be enough for you.
I cannot fathom why you would want to mislead your constituents on this serious issue, but the fact remains: Your response to my concerns was false and misleading.
Please take seriously your responsibility as a guardian of our environmental and energy security and do the right thing—act now to remove the threat of nuclear energy. It is neither safe, nor clean, nor economically viable into the 21st century.
Dear Mr. Bilbray,
As a father and grandfather, you take pride in the responsibility of protecting your children and grandchildren from harm. I assume you would never do anything to put your loved ones at unnecessary risk. By the same token, as a U.S. Congressman, you take pride in protecting your constituents from harm. I trust you would never knowingly do anything that would put us at risk.
I also trust, therefore, you want to be aware of the consequences of ignoring threats to the lives and health of your constituents. You would not wish to mislead us with regard to facts that may put us at risk, knowing that the best protection is prevention. Thus, I am sure you, as a guardian of our security, would want to be aware of any realities that might concern our health and safety. Certainly, you would never dismiss such concerns with foolish bravado.
In your response to my concerns regarding nuclear power, however, you said the following about the San Onofre nuclear power plant: “...the seawall created to repel tsunamis in San Onofre measures 30 feet high compared to the one protecting the power plant in Japan that was only 10 feet high.” Mr. Bilbray, with all due respect, that statement is just plain wrong. First, Japan’s seawalls were 10 meters high, not feet; that’s almost 33 feet for Japan’s seawalls; yet such seawalls were not high enough to withstand the tsunami that hit Japan, which was estimated by some at approximately 23 meters—76 feet high.*
Furthermore, according to Gil Alexander, a spokesman for the San Onofre plant's operator, Southern California Edison, the seawall at San Onofre is 25 feet —not 30 feet**, as you stated in your response— and so, clearly, it is an inadequate barrier, given the reality of tsunami science. You also did not mention that the San Onofre plant was designed to withstand a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, while the quake that hit Japan was a 9.0 quake. Nor did you mention that the plant in San Onofre was built 42 years ago, or that the geological fault most likely to directly threaten San Onofre lies about 5 miles offshore.
* http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20110314/102025.shtml
* http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/03/18/11/japan-tsunami-was-least-23-metres-high-report
* http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/23/height-estimate-japans-tsunami-wave-tops-70-feet/
** http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/san-onofre-nuclear-plant-can-withstand-quakestsunamis-officials-say.html
Sir, given the facts of Japan’s nuclear disaster —including the underestimation by nuclear engineers of the hazards and potential for catastrophe, as well as the deadly pollution of plutonium, radioactive iodine and cesium now contaminating Japan itself— and given the scientific facts, from the toxic pollution of uranium mining to that of spent fuel storage, your statement, “Nuclear power is an essential part of our domestic, clean energy mix” seems breathtakingly blind to reality. Nuclear power cannot in any way be rationalized as a part of a “clean energy mix.” There is nothing clean about it. To think otherwise is simply to ignore scientific fact:
“...What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,174 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (344.5 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons (453,592 metric tons) of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes?”http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/inside-the-earth/nuclear-waste.html
You also said, “Nuclear generated electricity avoids almost 650 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the United States.” This is may be true; however, the argument is a red herring—the proper comparison is between nuclear energy and green, 21st century, renewable energy, such as solar and wind technologies. These technologies will avoid both the deadly pollution of dirty nuclear and dirty coal.
Clearly, what we need to do, if we are to survive and progress as a species, is to do as Buckminster Fuller advised—leave 19th and 20th century energy technologies behind, and move forward toward 21st century energy technologies.
You said, “I believe that believe that science, not fear should drive our energy policy and our environmental policy.” I would respectfully suggest that “science” can be used to promote most any position one cares to support; to assume that the opposition to nuclear power is not based on science is plainly incorrect. Fear, as well, can be used as a motivator, as we have seen with regard to the “war on terrorism;” even though the threat to human life and security posed by nuclear power is every bit as real as the threat of Al Queda, it is downplayed. This begs a serious and valid question—who is more irrationally fearful, the citzen who objects to living near a nuclear power plant with the potential to render an entire city uninhabitable for hundreds, if not thousands, of years; or powerful entities who fear the consequence of losing profit should nuclear power be phased out?
In summing up, your response said, “I look forward to the full report on the Fukushima Daiichi Plant disaster so that we can ensure that all current and future nuclear power plants are as safe as possible.”
Mr. Bilbray, if what we already know about the disaster in Japan is not enough to begin phasing out nuclear power —specifically in your district, the San Onofre plant, which was built long ago near two earthquake faults— no further information, no disaster will ever be enough for you.
I cannot fathom why you would want to mislead your constituents on this serious issue, but the fact remains: Your response to my concerns was false and misleading.
Please take seriously your responsibility as a guardian of our environmental and energy security and do the right thing—act now to remove the threat of nuclear energy. It is neither safe, nor clean, nor economically viable into the 21st century.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Fiddling with Facebook While Japan Fries
“The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos.” —Jim Hightower
My daughter-in-law has been fund-raising on behalf of the public school my granddaughter attends in Rancho Penasquitos, a moderately affluent town twenty miles north of downtown San Diego. Perhaps she doesn’t mind having to raise money for art, music, and classroom supplies; after all, her child’s education is among her highest concerns. Or, perhaps she does mind, given that she and my son have already paid dearly into a system that is supposed to provide free education, a system that, regardless, places a higher value on the military machine than on her children’s education—$1,164,513,049,451 and climbing spent on wars since 2001 (this number will be obsolete by the time you read this).
One trillion-plus dollars spent on destruction. That’s who we are. But that’s okay—the more mothers we can enlist to pitch in and take up the slack in our schools (habituating service), the sooner we can privatize all the public schools and devote more financial resources to the main goal, which is, apparently, to turn America into a neo-feudal, corporate wet-dream of everlasting war and broken government, that is, paradise for millionaires and billionaires, while the scruffy stray dog the Commons has become wanders about searching for scraps...
Oh “gloom and doom!” Let’s not think about it! After all, we’ve already thought about it —irrational wars, our warming the planet to the point of no-return, the corporate coup d’etat of America— and come to realize we’re screwed. Time to “eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die,” or at least check our horoscope to discover we “may feel a little down today or low on energy. We may feel that we have hit some kind of creative road block, that we have suddenly turned invisible...” Or, perhaps we will poke somebody on Facebook, hoping for a poke back (Nobody ever pokes me, sigh.). Or we can write a blog post that nobody will read. That’s always useful.
Nobody wants to think about it? Not quite. Not all are ignoring reality; some are giving our situation a serious look and taking action. I happen to like Chris Hedges’ take on the subject in “Death of the Liberal Class,” for example. He has helped me to see what this denial is all about, and where we might be headed if we don’t get out of it, the denial, that is.
This morning UCTV aired a lecture by ecofeminist Professor of Environmental History, Philosophy, and Ethics at Berkeley, Carolyn Merchant. This lecture was entitled, Environmentalism: From the Control of Nature to Partnership. There, she traced the history of science from the Renaissance, with its Earth-as-a-Living-Organism world view; through Francis Bacon’s view of Earth as a female that man can shape and have power and dominion over; through Newton and the Industrial Revolution, where the view of nature went from “organism to machine.” Okay, so now we know how well that philosophy worked out, or is working out, still expressed by corporations that continue to operate in that unenlightened mode. They still act as if nature is something they can control via technology, in a mechanistic way. It’s nuts, but that’s who they are.
Fortunately, we can now say, “Whoa boys and girls, there’s new science to consider!” Namely, the “Butterfly Effect” in “Chaos Theory,” which I don’t pretend to understand, but which, according to Merchant, has given us a chance to “re-think our relation to the natural world.” One definition gives us this to consider: “Chaos Theory claims that as complexity increases in a system, its predictability decreases.” Think about that—Man, you don’t get to control stuff anymore. You’re weak and pathetic compared to Mother Nature.
So, suddenly, just in time —we hope— we have reason to tell people to give up the folly that we can do as we please with the planet, because some technological fix will save us. Science itself is telling us to forget that and start living “in partnership” with the Earth (Merchant’s vision). Well, isn’t that quaint? It took the Men, and Women, of Science in the industrialized realm this long to come to a realization indigenous peoples have understood from the start. Verrry schmaaat...but schtoopid!
It does seem to me, though, that not enough people are up to speed with the new vision. Many still think we can continue living as we do—continue burning carbon for fuel, sprawling across the urban landscape, importing food from far-away places, subsidizing the oil industry, failing to develop green technologies and failing to adopt earth-friendly options such as vegetarianism, etc., etc., etc. But how is a change of world view to be accomplished on a mass scale, when there’s so little time? We have known we are in trouble for decades. Jimmy Carter tried to tell us back in 1979, when he proposed that 20 percent of our energy should come from solar power by the year 2000:
But here we are thirty-two years later, and we haven’t budged more than an inch toward an energy program that would not only be sustainable from a consumer standpoint, but would be sustainable from a world peace and Earth-healthy standpoint, even though we are facing ecological and environmental catastrophes, world-wide, everywhere we look.
Thirty-two years. Do we have thirty-two years to waste, fiddling our thumbs, waiting for the corporate media to stop propagandizing on behalf of the oil industry? Do we have thirty-two years, while Japan fries (apparently global warming ='s earthquakes), Russia burns, the Arctic melts, bees die and disappear, corals fade and die?
Maybe if we hold a bake sale in every town. I can see it now...a sugar-cookie walrus hanging onto one tiny bit of white frosting on a sea-blue cake...
Naw...that’s not going to do the trick.
In Wisconsin this week, a protester’s sign read, “You screw us—we multiply!” What we need is the spirit of Wisconsin to multiply across the country in a tsunami of citizen democracy the likes of which no corporate criminal has ever seen. Wouldn’t that be something, something great for worker rights, for unions and the middle class. But notice how silent we are on global warming. Somehow it looks like only when a real tsunami of global disasters begins to affect all of us, including the Koch brothers of this world, only then will we humans get the message. I hate to annoy you with the truth, but by then it’s going to be too late.
Perhaps we need to hold hearings on the pernicious ideology of “free” market capitalism/empire, rather than the one being held this week on Islamic extremist ideology? Just a thought.
In the meantime, don’t feed the corporate beasts. They get fat and arrogant. Put your money in a credit union. Wear up-cycled clothes. If you can’t grow your own veggies, go vegetarian. Buy organic. Buy local. Buy American made products. Car pool. Vote progressive.
Any other ideas? I'm just a little bit worried for those grandchildren I love so much.
—Zenzoë
My daughter-in-law has been fund-raising on behalf of the public school my granddaughter attends in Rancho Penasquitos, a moderately affluent town twenty miles north of downtown San Diego. Perhaps she doesn’t mind having to raise money for art, music, and classroom supplies; after all, her child’s education is among her highest concerns. Or, perhaps she does mind, given that she and my son have already paid dearly into a system that is supposed to provide free education, a system that, regardless, places a higher value on the military machine than on her children’s education—$1,164,513,049,451 and climbing spent on wars since 2001 (this number will be obsolete by the time you read this).
One trillion-plus dollars spent on destruction. That’s who we are. But that’s okay—the more mothers we can enlist to pitch in and take up the slack in our schools (habituating service), the sooner we can privatize all the public schools and devote more financial resources to the main goal, which is, apparently, to turn America into a neo-feudal, corporate wet-dream of everlasting war and broken government, that is, paradise for millionaires and billionaires, while the scruffy stray dog the Commons has become wanders about searching for scraps...
Oh “gloom and doom!” Let’s not think about it! After all, we’ve already thought about it —irrational wars, our warming the planet to the point of no-return, the corporate coup d’etat of America— and come to realize we’re screwed. Time to “eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die,” or at least check our horoscope to discover we “may feel a little down today or low on energy. We may feel that we have hit some kind of creative road block, that we have suddenly turned invisible...” Or, perhaps we will poke somebody on Facebook, hoping for a poke back (Nobody ever pokes me, sigh.). Or we can write a blog post that nobody will read. That’s always useful.
Nobody wants to think about it? Not quite. Not all are ignoring reality; some are giving our situation a serious look and taking action. I happen to like Chris Hedges’ take on the subject in “Death of the Liberal Class,” for example. He has helped me to see what this denial is all about, and where we might be headed if we don’t get out of it, the denial, that is.
This morning UCTV aired a lecture by ecofeminist Professor of Environmental History, Philosophy, and Ethics at Berkeley, Carolyn Merchant. This lecture was entitled, Environmentalism: From the Control of Nature to Partnership. There, she traced the history of science from the Renaissance, with its Earth-as-a-Living-Organism world view; through Francis Bacon’s view of Earth as a female that man can shape and have power and dominion over; through Newton and the Industrial Revolution, where the view of nature went from “organism to machine.” Okay, so now we know how well that philosophy worked out, or is working out, still expressed by corporations that continue to operate in that unenlightened mode. They still act as if nature is something they can control via technology, in a mechanistic way. It’s nuts, but that’s who they are.
Fortunately, we can now say, “Whoa boys and girls, there’s new science to consider!” Namely, the “Butterfly Effect” in “Chaos Theory,” which I don’t pretend to understand, but which, according to Merchant, has given us a chance to “re-think our relation to the natural world.” One definition gives us this to consider: “Chaos Theory claims that as complexity increases in a system, its predictability decreases.” Think about that—Man, you don’t get to control stuff anymore. You’re weak and pathetic compared to Mother Nature.
So, suddenly, just in time —we hope— we have reason to tell people to give up the folly that we can do as we please with the planet, because some technological fix will save us. Science itself is telling us to forget that and start living “in partnership” with the Earth (Merchant’s vision). Well, isn’t that quaint? It took the Men, and Women, of Science in the industrialized realm this long to come to a realization indigenous peoples have understood from the start. Verrry schmaaat...but schtoopid!
It does seem to me, though, that not enough people are up to speed with the new vision. Many still think we can continue living as we do—continue burning carbon for fuel, sprawling across the urban landscape, importing food from far-away places, subsidizing the oil industry, failing to develop green technologies and failing to adopt earth-friendly options such as vegetarianism, etc., etc., etc. But how is a change of world view to be accomplished on a mass scale, when there’s so little time? We have known we are in trouble for decades. Jimmy Carter tried to tell us back in 1979, when he proposed that 20 percent of our energy should come from solar power by the year 2000:
“To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”
But here we are thirty-two years later, and we haven’t budged more than an inch toward an energy program that would not only be sustainable from a consumer standpoint, but would be sustainable from a world peace and Earth-healthy standpoint, even though we are facing ecological and environmental catastrophes, world-wide, everywhere we look.
Thirty-two years. Do we have thirty-two years to waste, fiddling our thumbs, waiting for the corporate media to stop propagandizing on behalf of the oil industry? Do we have thirty-two years, while Japan fries (apparently global warming ='s earthquakes), Russia burns, the Arctic melts, bees die and disappear, corals fade and die?
Maybe if we hold a bake sale in every town. I can see it now...a sugar-cookie walrus hanging onto one tiny bit of white frosting on a sea-blue cake...
Naw...that’s not going to do the trick.
In Wisconsin this week, a protester’s sign read, “You screw us—we multiply!” What we need is the spirit of Wisconsin to multiply across the country in a tsunami of citizen democracy the likes of which no corporate criminal has ever seen. Wouldn’t that be something, something great for worker rights, for unions and the middle class. But notice how silent we are on global warming. Somehow it looks like only when a real tsunami of global disasters begins to affect all of us, including the Koch brothers of this world, only then will we humans get the message. I hate to annoy you with the truth, but by then it’s going to be too late.
Perhaps we need to hold hearings on the pernicious ideology of “free” market capitalism/empire, rather than the one being held this week on Islamic extremist ideology? Just a thought.
In the meantime, don’t feed the corporate beasts. They get fat and arrogant. Put your money in a credit union. Wear up-cycled clothes. If you can’t grow your own veggies, go vegetarian. Buy organic. Buy local. Buy American made products. Car pool. Vote progressive.
Any other ideas? I'm just a little bit worried for those grandchildren I love so much.
—Zenzoë
Monday, March 7, 2011
Pale Reminiscences of a Never-ending Girlhood
The day of my birth, my father visited my mother in the hospital to tell her he wanted a divorce. I have no way of knowing how that dismal fact affected my childhood, though Mother told me I used to whimper a lot as a baby. Regardless, I must have recovered quickly, because my earliest girlhood memories have me swinging from the tops of trees like a natural monkey, or flying over fences after letting go of my seat on a swing, or engaging in dirt-clod wars with the rest of the kids in the neighborhood, taking cover within the lush suburban jungle of a vacant lot.
I only had one doll and couldn’t say if I missed having more, though I remember being envious of the awesome collection of Storybook Dolls lining the shelves of a little friend’s bedroom. Not to worry, of course— I had other things to do, and playing with dolls wasn’t on the list.
My mother re-married when I was eight-years-old, and the man she married was a handsome, no-ifs-ands-or-buts veteran of WWII, a Lieutenant. Having only experienced a casual matriarchy up until then —mother, grandmother and three girls— and being entirely unacquainted with the notion of patriarchy, I didn’t take to the new arrangement all that well. Thus began The Resistance. My step-father soon learned I wasn’t going to be a push-over, getting lip from me in no uncertain terms: “I don’t have to mind you— you’re not my father.”
The man had a big heart, though, and found a way to soften the resistance when I reached age ten. He bought a six-month-old horse for me, fulfilling that little girl’s constant wishes, which she had been expressing out loud from the very beginning. I named him “Salute,” and we remained good companions until I married at age twenty-four. Funny thing is, now, a million years later, I miss the horse more than the man I married and divorced thirteen years into the marriage.
Also at age ten I could beat any boy in the neighborhood at foot racing. Of course, those athletic triumphs soon went the way of pale reminiscences, when all of us reached puberty. “Oh! The unfairness of it all!” But I still had my horse, though I went from horse-crazy to boy-crazy in no time at all, not that I ignored my horse—he was always good for soothing a broken heart. Then along comes marriage, and I had to sell my horse and put all my childish dreams aside, but didn’t. Not really.
"So, like a forgotten fire, a childhood can always flare up again within us." ~Gaston Bachelard
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Gaga Update
Not to worry. Yes, the slutty bit was absent— tasteful make-up (pee-hole-in-the-snow eyeliner gone), an arty pink hair-do, and a sumptuous array of photo layouts with Gaga dressed in costumes of the highest and most exquisite femme-fantastical order you could ever imagine. Quite beautiful, actually. Then it hit me—Marie Antoinette! Well, sure—Lady Gaga is the new royalty. In essence, what I found myself looking at was a let-them-eat-cake ideology only Vogue can deliver with quite the slick and delicious perfection that it does.
You might notice, if you go to Vogue’s website, an advertisement for “chalk calf copper anklet sandal, also available in black: $2,295.” Ee-ee-kkk! I don’t know about you, but if I had that kind of incidental cash, I’d rather spend it on a heating system for my humble abode (mine is not functioning). Leafing through the magazine itself, you might also notice in the advertisements, as did I, a fashion trend that is quite reminiscent of the Roaring 20’s, which is also present in the Gaga layouts, or, as it seems to me. Hello? Are they telling us something, or not? And isn’t this yet another face of the zeitgeist, where wealth and fame and extravagance and cold cash are the ultimate values? Class warfare? You bet!
The Gaga article is pure cotton candy, supporting the ridiculous notion that she is an artist, though I don’t know why I would even hope for a RollingStone sort of exposé in Vogue. And the Lady lies through her perfect teeth again, claiming to have been bullied in her school days. Well, the myth must be perpetuated, after all. The author did use the word “zeitgeist,” however. That I found most interesting.
(Note: Fair Use doctrine applied to the use of this photograph, as it is being used for the purpose of artistic criticism. And because not all that many people will see it here!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)