Maxwell Despard's Blog
July 31, 2011
Here, have some poetry. Explanatory details at the end.
These poems, written by Chung Ssu-Ch'eng, are excerpted from The Wine of Endless Life: Taoist Drinking Songs from the Yuan Dynasty, edited / translated by Jerome P. Seaton. Very worthwhile read, I highly recommend it. You can pick up a copy through BookFinder.com for less than $10.
Ch'ü Yüan was "a loyal minister of the Ch'u state in the Warring States Period" and "China's first non-anonymous poet." T'ao Ch'ien, the "most famous of all the recluse-poets of traditional China," is known for his preference of "drinking and playing with children to official position. According to tradition he resigned office on one occasion because it was simply too much bother to put on his official girdle in order to have an audience with a superior."
Wood-cutter Chung Tzu-ch'i "is supposed to have been able to interpret the meaning of the music of Po Ya perfectly, hearing mountains and running water in the lute notes when Po played of mountains and streams. When Chung died Po Ya broke his lute and never played again."
plucking ferns to eat in exile at Shou-yang
in vain enduring hunger
wasn't that just silly quibbling?
was Ch'ü Yüan's sobriety
so much more grand than
T'ao Ch'ien's getting drunk?
go find yourself a shady spot
sit idle on the ground.
----------
Po Ya searched out his Chung Tzu-ch'i
to talk about the meaning in his music
lute spoke to him of flowing streams and lofty hills
who knows my music so?
go find yourself a shady spot
sit idle on the ground.
----------
Then and now, gone and come, idle right and wrong
over and again fulfilling and falling
don't brag to me of Han Hsin's glory
don't bother me with Ch'en P'ing wisdom
go find yourself a shady spot
sit idle on the ground
----------
for eagle and sparrow the same sky to fly in
jade and pebbles are both stone
how to divide in highs and lows
who cares what's true, what's false
go find yourself a shady spot
sit idle on the ground
----------
his tasteless heart like ashes
even the flavor of wine gone
he's broken with his love the cup
he's left her bed
and gone
to find himself a shady place
sit idle on the ground.
These poems, written by Chung Ssu-Ch'eng, are excerpted from The Wine of Endless Life: Taoist Drinking Songs from the Yuan Dynasty, edited / translated by Jerome P. Seaton. Very worthwhile read, I highly recommend it. You can pick up a copy through BookFinder.com for less than $10.
Ch'ü Yüan was "a loyal minister of the Ch'u state in the Warring States Period" and "China's first non-anonymous poet." T'ao Ch'ien, the "most famous of all the recluse-poets of traditional China," is known for his preference of "drinking and playing with children to official position. According to tradition he resigned office on one occasion because it was simply too much bother to put on his official girdle in order to have an audience with a superior."
Wood-cutter Chung Tzu-ch'i "is supposed to have been able to interpret the meaning of the music of Po Ya perfectly, hearing mountains and running water in the lute notes when Po played of mountains and streams. When Chung died Po Ya broke his lute and never played again."
July 13, 2011
I recently met somebody that likes poetry but doesn't know much after the mid-20th century, so I offered to gather up names & links for 'em. To provide a more varied list, I requested suggestions from poets that I know and planned on listing. Here's what I came up with:
Edgar Gabriel Silex suggested Charles Simic and W.S. Merwin.
Tony Brown.
Erik JM Schneider (and here) inadvertently turned me on to Max Wolf Valerio, and suggests both Lyn Hejinian and Rae Armantrout.
Jeffrey Hecker (and here) suggests Brigit Pegeen Kelly.
Shira Erlichman.
Jeffrey McDaniel.
Karyna McGlynn.
Richard Siken.
Jeff Hewitt (and here).
Anis Mojgani (and here).
Adam Rubinstein (and here).
Jason Quackenbush suggests B. H. Fairchild and Ron Silliman.
Melanie Wright suggests Don Paterson.
Cheryl Snow White suggests Denise Duhamel.
Also, Rattle Magazine is one of the leading lit rags, publishing a lot of good stuff, much of which is online.
Edgar Gabriel Silex suggested Charles Simic and W.S. Merwin.
Tony Brown.
Erik JM Schneider (and here) inadvertently turned me on to Max Wolf Valerio, and suggests both Lyn Hejinian and Rae Armantrout.
Jeffrey Hecker (and here) suggests Brigit Pegeen Kelly.
Shira Erlichman.
Jeffrey McDaniel.
Karyna McGlynn.
Richard Siken.
Jeff Hewitt (and here).
Anis Mojgani (and here).
Adam Rubinstein (and here).
Jason Quackenbush suggests B. H. Fairchild and Ron Silliman.
Melanie Wright suggests Don Paterson.
Cheryl Snow White suggests Denise Duhamel.
Also, Rattle Magazine is one of the leading lit rags, publishing a lot of good stuff, much of which is online.
July 9, 2011
Back when everyone was high on Hope & Change, I called Obama as an idealistic left-leaning moderate capitalist that would disappoint his unrealistic base. I called the racial backlash and ineffectuality of Congressional leftists that led to the 2010 losses. He was never a socialist, and he's only progressive within the confines of a highly conservative culture that practically invented global capitalism. After all, the U.S. is the conservative stronghold of the "western world" or whatever.
I think he's a decent dude, a very intelligent guy with the best of intentions and some really sound ideas. Unfortunately, he is what he is, and there are sociopolitical factors well beyond his control. So, yeah, he's caving to the GOP or whatever. What the hell is he supposed to do? After all, he wants to be reelected (the DNC won't pick anyone else unless he refuses to run again), and that depends on more than just a bunch of progressives that are only happy when they're distracted by hype.
If he keeps fighting, it'll work against him as nothing will be accomplished, which is the hope of the GOP. He's a shrewd man, working a screwed up situation to the best of his abilities so as to ensure the opportunity to use the next four years to pull out the stops and get some real shit done.
So, progressives, quit whining. What are you going to do, not vote for him? That makes sense: let's punish Obama by bringing in a Republican president in 2012, 'cause he's totally worse than the Republicans. right?
I think he's a decent dude, a very intelligent guy with the best of intentions and some really sound ideas. Unfortunately, he is what he is, and there are sociopolitical factors well beyond his control. So, yeah, he's caving to the GOP or whatever. What the hell is he supposed to do? After all, he wants to be reelected (the DNC won't pick anyone else unless he refuses to run again), and that depends on more than just a bunch of progressives that are only happy when they're distracted by hype.
If he keeps fighting, it'll work against him as nothing will be accomplished, which is the hope of the GOP. He's a shrewd man, working a screwed up situation to the best of his abilities so as to ensure the opportunity to use the next four years to pull out the stops and get some real shit done.
So, progressives, quit whining. What are you going to do, not vote for him? That makes sense: let's punish Obama by bringing in a Republican president in 2012, 'cause he's totally worse than the Republicans. right?
July 7, 2011
Nobody cares if it's your favorite song. Nobody cares about what stupid high school romance shit is happening in your life that you somehow think a song about the American Revolution / Greek philosophy / class war somehow speaks to. Nobody cares if you think the band sucks. Nobody cares what songs or versions you prefer. Nobody cares that you went to a show unless the band in question told the crowd what the song is about (in which case, nobody cares if you had a good time or not). Nobody cares if you think the song should have more comments.
Song meanings. If you can't stay on topic, shut the fuck up.
Song meanings. If you can't stay on topic, shut the fuck up.
June 20, 2011
Here's the deal: I'm not entirely certain what I want to do with this blog. I've been analyzing a lot, questioning motivations, and I keep hitting a brick wall. So many people blog in some way or another, mostly to hardly anyone about shit that most people aren't interested in. It's mostly an exercise in ego, putting one's opinions out there because so many other people are, and we're just as important as they are, right? We need to counteract their bullshit, right?
I'm finding it more difficult to care. The Taoist / Discordian aspects of "self" are coming back around again as prominent influences, after ~5 years of significant self-education and ~3 years of dedication to college. I've studied so much anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, history and hard science that I've come back around to a better informed, more effective variation on who I was before. Kind of taking the position that ~2500 years of "Western" development have brought us to what the Taoists already figured out. I mean, shit, multiverse theory? Astrophysics these days is getting pretty intense, the geologic time scale makes the concerns of now seem absurd.
I'm finding it easier to laugh, though. Still find myself compelled to speak, rather frequently, but I can't think of much to say 'cause I don't see much point in it. I mostly just laugh at what happens, at what people say / do, at major events / developments.
Personally, I've gone three weeks without a cigarette, I graduate with my A.S. in social science this fall and plan to start on my B.A. in creative writing at ODU, I'm single for the first time in ~5 years, I've stopped drinking again (wasn't drinking much to begin with), and I'm looking for part time work. Everything is in flux, and I'm trying to get as much awesome out of that as possible. Listening to a lot of Einstürzende Neubauten lately, reading a lot more poetry (Rattle Magazine, Richard Siken, Anis Mojgani, Tony Brown).
So, yeah, there's all that. I'll be back around at some point or another, maybe with a better idea of what the hell I want to do with this space.
I'm finding it more difficult to care. The Taoist / Discordian aspects of "self" are coming back around again as prominent influences, after ~5 years of significant self-education and ~3 years of dedication to college. I've studied so much anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, history and hard science that I've come back around to a better informed, more effective variation on who I was before. Kind of taking the position that ~2500 years of "Western" development have brought us to what the Taoists already figured out. I mean, shit, multiverse theory? Astrophysics these days is getting pretty intense, the geologic time scale makes the concerns of now seem absurd.
I'm finding it easier to laugh, though. Still find myself compelled to speak, rather frequently, but I can't think of much to say 'cause I don't see much point in it. I mostly just laugh at what happens, at what people say / do, at major events / developments.
Personally, I've gone three weeks without a cigarette, I graduate with my A.S. in social science this fall and plan to start on my B.A. in creative writing at ODU, I'm single for the first time in ~5 years, I've stopped drinking again (wasn't drinking much to begin with), and I'm looking for part time work. Everything is in flux, and I'm trying to get as much awesome out of that as possible. Listening to a lot of Einstürzende Neubauten lately, reading a lot more poetry (Rattle Magazine, Richard Siken, Anis Mojgani, Tony Brown).
So, yeah, there's all that. I'll be back around at some point or another, maybe with a better idea of what the hell I want to do with this space.
May 9, 2011
About a week ago, Morris Dickstein posted a transcript of his remarks given at a panel on "The Next Decade of Book Culture" from about a week prior. He covers a lot of the same old ground, laying out the same old facts, with about as much excitement as found in this very sentence. This isn't to say that the ostensible death of "print media" is a good thing, just that we've been over it and over it and over it. Once it's been discussed on Good Morning America, there's little point in rehashing. For the most part, his analysis of the changes to book culture and the context that have brought them about, is solid.
Still, there's a thinly veiled undercurrent of book reviewers collectively whining about the prevalence of the uneducated opinion in new, semi-permanent manifestations. It's a little bit funny to watch. I understand their concern; the strand of horse hair holding Damocles' sword aloft is being eroded by developments in material culture, threatening their relevance and income. Something so simple as barbed wire effectively eliminated the economic viability of being a cowboy. As a poet, I get it. There are more poets courting publication, more people reading poetry, but fewer culturally significant voices (of real merit, anyway). People are reading more, but there are more people writing and, frankly, most of them suck. I probably occupy that place for at least a few of the people that have read / heard my work. I don't think our relationship with literature has changed terribly much, we're just more exposed to it. Five minutes on a search engine can provide months of reading material, much of which is mediocre. The crap wasn't quite so accessible, there were marginally fewer consumers of marginally more refined taste, and the opinions of the uninformed weren't near so prevalent. The changes are significant enough to have an impact on the individual writer, but it's mostly superficial and predicated on a short / selective memory.
What has changed is that the uninformed opinions of literature are no longer limited to conversation and private letters, but are cross-posted throughout the internet for any interested parties to read. I don't feel that he makes this distinction clear enough, if at all. The disdain with which he refers to the democratization of literary critique strikes me as borne more of wounded pride than anything else. There has always been shit, and there has always been a bunch of academics ignoring it or gushing over it, vilifying the next generations' classics. For example, while there's a lot of garbage slam poetry, and a lot of justified debate as to the "soul" or whatever of slam, there's too much awesome that was shat upon by ivory tower tools trying to maintain academia's tight grip on poetry, the preservation of their increasingly conservative tastes. Sucks to lose your job, especially if the only other occupations available is teaching English composition and intro creative writing to undergraduates (I've already chosen that path, so there's no disappointment for me). Still, as he touches on in his allusion to the tablets of Sinai, there's a long history of the culture of literature.
The thing that really bugged me is his assertion that movies don't constitute literature. This is predicated on an idealistic re-imagining of literary history, as if there isn't at least a handful of forgotten mediocrity for every text that has stood the test of time, or at least is erroneously claimed to have done so. It's predicated on arbitrary attachment to particular manifestations. Literature includes the oral tradition, tablets, hand-scribed tomes, leaflets, and traditionally printed books. It also includes film, video games, spoken word (including Tony Brown's one-time readings: writing poems for one performance, then destroying the only physical copies on stage), and pretty much any act of expression seeking to use some form or medium to communicate something bigger (as in, crap fiction is about what happens within, but literature uses what happens to communicate something else, like The Old Man and the Sea as allegory for Jesus). Granted, most film isn't very good, but that doesn't mean it isn't literature.
If these kind of logical holes and homeric nods are characteristic of the professional book reviewer, what are we really losing out on? There will always be uneducated crap and educated crap; at least these mostly marginal changes in book culture shake the foundations of that ivory tower. I'd rather decide for myself who has something worthwhile to say instead of being stuck with a self-important cabal of elitists that are just as off-the-mark as the rest of society.
Still, there's a thinly veiled undercurrent of book reviewers collectively whining about the prevalence of the uneducated opinion in new, semi-permanent manifestations. It's a little bit funny to watch. I understand their concern; the strand of horse hair holding Damocles' sword aloft is being eroded by developments in material culture, threatening their relevance and income. Something so simple as barbed wire effectively eliminated the economic viability of being a cowboy. As a poet, I get it. There are more poets courting publication, more people reading poetry, but fewer culturally significant voices (of real merit, anyway). People are reading more, but there are more people writing and, frankly, most of them suck. I probably occupy that place for at least a few of the people that have read / heard my work. I don't think our relationship with literature has changed terribly much, we're just more exposed to it. Five minutes on a search engine can provide months of reading material, much of which is mediocre. The crap wasn't quite so accessible, there were marginally fewer consumers of marginally more refined taste, and the opinions of the uninformed weren't near so prevalent. The changes are significant enough to have an impact on the individual writer, but it's mostly superficial and predicated on a short / selective memory.
What has changed is that the uninformed opinions of literature are no longer limited to conversation and private letters, but are cross-posted throughout the internet for any interested parties to read. I don't feel that he makes this distinction clear enough, if at all. The disdain with which he refers to the democratization of literary critique strikes me as borne more of wounded pride than anything else. There has always been shit, and there has always been a bunch of academics ignoring it or gushing over it, vilifying the next generations' classics. For example, while there's a lot of garbage slam poetry, and a lot of justified debate as to the "soul" or whatever of slam, there's too much awesome that was shat upon by ivory tower tools trying to maintain academia's tight grip on poetry, the preservation of their increasingly conservative tastes. Sucks to lose your job, especially if the only other occupations available is teaching English composition and intro creative writing to undergraduates (I've already chosen that path, so there's no disappointment for me). Still, as he touches on in his allusion to the tablets of Sinai, there's a long history of the culture of literature.
The thing that really bugged me is his assertion that movies don't constitute literature. This is predicated on an idealistic re-imagining of literary history, as if there isn't at least a handful of forgotten mediocrity for every text that has stood the test of time, or at least is erroneously claimed to have done so. It's predicated on arbitrary attachment to particular manifestations. Literature includes the oral tradition, tablets, hand-scribed tomes, leaflets, and traditionally printed books. It also includes film, video games, spoken word (including Tony Brown's one-time readings: writing poems for one performance, then destroying the only physical copies on stage), and pretty much any act of expression seeking to use some form or medium to communicate something bigger (as in, crap fiction is about what happens within, but literature uses what happens to communicate something else, like The Old Man and the Sea as allegory for Jesus). Granted, most film isn't very good, but that doesn't mean it isn't literature.
If these kind of logical holes and homeric nods are characteristic of the professional book reviewer, what are we really losing out on? There will always be uneducated crap and educated crap; at least these mostly marginal changes in book culture shake the foundations of that ivory tower. I'd rather decide for myself who has something worthwhile to say instead of being stuck with a self-important cabal of elitists that are just as off-the-mark as the rest of society.
April 26, 2011
Life happens. Personal things. Coursework, including what became a 17p term paper for U.S. Government I on repression of dissent via weak interpretations of the Press Clause, a 4p research paper for U.S. History II on the political history of the 1960s, another 4p extra credit paper on The Birth of a Nation for the same class (any of which I'm willing to post if there's interest), and generally keeping up with Physical Geology. Semester ends next week, just gotta knock out three exams (two of which require two essays each). Looking forward to the break, to filling my time with physical activity, fixing shit up around the house, getting my Jeep back on the road, catching up with wonderful people that I've neglected these past few months, working on the manuscript, reading, reading, straightening out some bureaucratic bullshit with my financial aid, and getting enrolled in ODU for next spring semester.
And of course, I'll be posting here more regularly. Get your suggestions in now on the kind of stuff you'd like to see.
And of course, I'll be posting here more regularly. Get your suggestions in now on the kind of stuff you'd like to see.
March 6, 2011
It's been about two months since I "quit" Facebook (henceforth "FB"). I still have an account, with no "friends" listed, that cannot be "friend-requested," for the express purpose of maintaining the "like" page for my public writer persona thing. It's been interesting, figuring out how to waste time when I can't focus / want intellectual stimulation / feel like starting an argument with some jerk and/or idiot; when I cleared my browser history after quitting, there had been over 10,000 hits in three months. I've had a fair amount of time to reflect, discuss and observe.
The format of FB, sort of a Twitter meets crappy message board meets crappy journal platform, doesn't allow for much depth. The rapidly decreasing attention span of modern culture, the successful efforts to smash the barriers between our "online selves" and "IRL selves" (which has earned a handful of people many billions of dollars in multiple now-linked industries), and the resulting redefinition of "friend," have created a monster. Facebook is a novum, a thing that did not exist until it did, at which point society integrated it so quickly and thoroughly as to make it necessary; like the mp3, mobile phone, television, electricity, and the printing press, Facebook has radically changed the landscape of culture to the point that it can no longer be understood in the same terms as were relevant ten years ago. It reflects our changing value systems, which it exacerbates and guides into new directions.
Given that "our nature" is largely based on the application of an exceptionalist perspective to whatever narratives we're presented with (i.e. - polity, geographic region, religion, hobby), in the context of the aforementioned traits of Facebook and modern culture, FB makes it incredibly easy to hate everyone that you know. People that you've met maybe a handful of times in public spaces (parties, clubs, a dingy coffeehouse) will "friend-request" you; you know each other, so you must be friends, right? All it takes to become "friends" is the click of a link, removing all of the hard work in proving worthwhile to / compatible with others; the amount of self-exceptionalism (which can easily coexist with self-loathing / -doubt) in a person directly correlates to the odds that they will add you to their validating collection of "friends."
Self-exceptionalism also causes people to think that their every passing thought / action merits posting as a status update. These people that you got along with just fine as acquaintances to chat with at the club / local open mic / party are suddenly shown to you in a far more detailed light; suddenly, you realize that they think Obama's birth certificate is forged, that shopping is their favorite hobby, that they're intellectually dishonest as fuck, that they are obsessed with the Twilight "saga", and that you hate them more and more with each successive status update / comment that you see. People that passively accepted the "death of privacy" now share the minutiae of their intellectual / personal lives in a way that you never had to be aware before. You were as close as you could be with these people while still being compatible, but no more; now, you see all the ways in which you aren't, and a good many of 'em can't help but drop this noise all over your page from their new fancy phone-things 'cause, well, that's what we're supposed to do, right? Using Facebook on our phone-things isn't just normal, but expected; it's quickly becoming the most prominent method of interaction. And of course, "friends" are going to clash on your page if you talk about anything which people have strong opinions; equally obvious is the most ignorant opinions being asserted most forcefully. While it was sometimes amusing to post something and watch people tear each other apart in my comments, it stymied legitimate discussion more than it entertained.
This one isn't FB's fault, but it really doesn't play nice with my head noise. All of the aforementioned shit, in tangent with the fact that I could never quite get hip with these cultural changes (I resent them very much), was really bad when I was mooding. I embarrassed the hell out of myself a few times by Facebooking-while-crazy. One time, I attempted to engage a person with whom I didn't get along on something political (she was saying dumb things), she said that it was probably a bad idea to interact, and 'cause I was moody as hell, I bugged out on her, which has negatively colored the opinions of quite a few people, 'cause it was open for hundreds to see. I would get sucked in, try to have substantive conversation with people when I felt like reaching out, and end up arguing a whole bunch, doing even more harm to my mood state.
I don't think I need to go on all that much about FB as a massive data-mining project for the U.S. government and private industry, as well as its role in facilitating sales. It will soon likely be filled with sock puppet accounts run by the government to sway public opinion, sort of like the "supporters" of Mubarak that popped up on Twitter (the U.S. government contracted the infamous HBGary Federal to develop this project). I'm think I may have encountered one on Twitter already. But this isn't the point.
I've seen a growing dissatisfaction with FB. Quite a few people that I know on or through Livejournal have backed off from FB or quit altogether, returning to LJ for the more deliberate, nuanced methods of online interaction. Though LJ is still pretty slow, the ratio of interesting posts-to-bullshit is the best it's been in ten years. I hope to see this trend continue.
In the absence of Facebook as a means of facilitating social interaction (as opposed to using it as the platform for the interaction), I've found that I'm pretty much completely out of the loop. I don't know where / when the social events are, what's going on in the poetry or activist communities, or what's happening in the lives of people that I never get to see 'cause they're too busy unless it was something else I can't do anymore: the spontaneous meet-up over coffee / a beer. I'm not happy about these things, but I still feel that I made the right decision.
The format of FB, sort of a Twitter meets crappy message board meets crappy journal platform, doesn't allow for much depth. The rapidly decreasing attention span of modern culture, the successful efforts to smash the barriers between our "online selves" and "IRL selves" (which has earned a handful of people many billions of dollars in multiple now-linked industries), and the resulting redefinition of "friend," have created a monster. Facebook is a novum, a thing that did not exist until it did, at which point society integrated it so quickly and thoroughly as to make it necessary; like the mp3, mobile phone, television, electricity, and the printing press, Facebook has radically changed the landscape of culture to the point that it can no longer be understood in the same terms as were relevant ten years ago. It reflects our changing value systems, which it exacerbates and guides into new directions.
Given that "our nature" is largely based on the application of an exceptionalist perspective to whatever narratives we're presented with (i.e. - polity, geographic region, religion, hobby), in the context of the aforementioned traits of Facebook and modern culture, FB makes it incredibly easy to hate everyone that you know. People that you've met maybe a handful of times in public spaces (parties, clubs, a dingy coffeehouse) will "friend-request" you; you know each other, so you must be friends, right? All it takes to become "friends" is the click of a link, removing all of the hard work in proving worthwhile to / compatible with others; the amount of self-exceptionalism (which can easily coexist with self-loathing / -doubt) in a person directly correlates to the odds that they will add you to their validating collection of "friends."
Self-exceptionalism also causes people to think that their every passing thought / action merits posting as a status update. These people that you got along with just fine as acquaintances to chat with at the club / local open mic / party are suddenly shown to you in a far more detailed light; suddenly, you realize that they think Obama's birth certificate is forged, that shopping is their favorite hobby, that they're intellectually dishonest as fuck, that they are obsessed with the Twilight "saga", and that you hate them more and more with each successive status update / comment that you see. People that passively accepted the "death of privacy" now share the minutiae of their intellectual / personal lives in a way that you never had to be aware before. You were as close as you could be with these people while still being compatible, but no more; now, you see all the ways in which you aren't, and a good many of 'em can't help but drop this noise all over your page from their new fancy phone-things 'cause, well, that's what we're supposed to do, right? Using Facebook on our phone-things isn't just normal, but expected; it's quickly becoming the most prominent method of interaction. And of course, "friends" are going to clash on your page if you talk about anything which people have strong opinions; equally obvious is the most ignorant opinions being asserted most forcefully. While it was sometimes amusing to post something and watch people tear each other apart in my comments, it stymied legitimate discussion more than it entertained.
This one isn't FB's fault, but it really doesn't play nice with my head noise. All of the aforementioned shit, in tangent with the fact that I could never quite get hip with these cultural changes (I resent them very much), was really bad when I was mooding. I embarrassed the hell out of myself a few times by Facebooking-while-crazy. One time, I attempted to engage a person with whom I didn't get along on something political (she was saying dumb things), she said that it was probably a bad idea to interact, and 'cause I was moody as hell, I bugged out on her, which has negatively colored the opinions of quite a few people, 'cause it was open for hundreds to see. I would get sucked in, try to have substantive conversation with people when I felt like reaching out, and end up arguing a whole bunch, doing even more harm to my mood state.
I don't think I need to go on all that much about FB as a massive data-mining project for the U.S. government and private industry, as well as its role in facilitating sales. It will soon likely be filled with sock puppet accounts run by the government to sway public opinion, sort of like the "supporters" of Mubarak that popped up on Twitter (the U.S. government contracted the infamous HBGary Federal to develop this project). I'm think I may have encountered one on Twitter already. But this isn't the point.
I've seen a growing dissatisfaction with FB. Quite a few people that I know on or through Livejournal have backed off from FB or quit altogether, returning to LJ for the more deliberate, nuanced methods of online interaction. Though LJ is still pretty slow, the ratio of interesting posts-to-bullshit is the best it's been in ten years. I hope to see this trend continue.
In the absence of Facebook as a means of facilitating social interaction (as opposed to using it as the platform for the interaction), I've found that I'm pretty much completely out of the loop. I don't know where / when the social events are, what's going on in the poetry or activist communities, or what's happening in the lives of people that I never get to see 'cause they're too busy unless it was something else I can't do anymore: the spontaneous meet-up over coffee / a beer. I'm not happy about these things, but I still feel that I made the right decision.
February 23, 2011
Been busy. Exams are hitting back-to-back and term papers are starting to loom. Interactions with bureaucracy.
Sent a letter to Rep. Scott Rigell (R):
Hoping to get a response with more substance than "Thanks, we take the opinions of our constituents very seriously!", but I'm not holding my breath.
Not gone, just too busy / weary of the mainstream political discourse. Things will pick up when they do, and you all can resume the occasional reading / infrequent commenting.
Sent a letter to Rep. Scott Rigell (R):
I recognize that our economy is pretty wrecked and, as such, unpleasant cuts are necessary. Though I hate to see the social programs on which so many people depend getting gutted, cuts to higher education assistance, and crippling of public broadcasting, I understand that there's no way around it.
There's a disconnect, though. I don't like seeing the economy exploited as erroneous justification for waging a social war against such relatively inexpensive programs that have historically (and often without good reason) been opposed by the GOP. If you and your peers would take a salary cut, put a freeze on future raises, and tax the upper middle and upper classes at reasonable rates, I could live with some of these proposed cuts. As it stands, the historically awful idea of giving the rich tax breaks, the idea that has preceded every economic downturn since taxes have been levied, is being continued. We could also make larger cuts to defense, without compromising the lives or livelihoods of those within the military, by limiting R&D into such wasteful projects as the flying Jeep (most of which never go anywhere), scaling back our occupation in such countries as Germany and Japan, and a freeze on pay raises for higher ranking individuals that, frankly, are making a very good living already.
The money freed up by the proposed cuts to Planned Parenthood and NPR, as two of many examples, is negligible without significant cuts elsewhere.
Put frankly, why should the many make such sacrifices if the few make none and, at least as often as not, prosper as a result of our sacrifices? Hell, double the tax people making over $2 million a year and they'll still be rich. Why are the poor the ones that always pay?
Hoping to get a response with more substance than "Thanks, we take the opinions of our constituents very seriously!", but I'm not holding my breath.
Not gone, just too busy / weary of the mainstream political discourse. Things will pick up when they do, and you all can resume the occasional reading / infrequent commenting.
February 19, 2011
This is the most attention, and most honest attention, I've seen given to a labor dispute here in a while. So, who thinks we ought to spread the dissent? I think it might be fun for us Americans to turn off Jersey Shore / American Idol / Robot Chicken / CSI, stand up, and make some noise. Hell, if enough people get in on it, maybe we'll see some modicum of reform beyond symbolic gestures.
I mean, why the hell not? Let the unemployed take to the streets, spange outside businesses catering to the well-off or government buildings, blow up the phones of our representatives, gather in parks for "stop fucking us!" picnics. Lets have some fun with it. Who's down?
I mean, why the hell not? Let the unemployed take to the streets, spange outside businesses catering to the well-off or government buildings, blow up the phones of our representatives, gather in parks for "stop fucking us!" picnics. Lets have some fun with it. Who's down?
