I Have Sex

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ith all of the Republican primary junk going on these days, it seems as if America is all conservative and traditionalist — trying to get back to the good-ol’-days that never were. Or the days when white, heterosexual, capitalist, men ran everything public and private. It’s good to see that the reality of America is far from what these medieval moralists are trying to make it. They might dominate the old media channels, but the new media let other other views be heard. I’m not sure what planet Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, and the Koch Brothers are from, but I’m pretty sure I don’t want to live there — or even visit.

Don’t live in fear and obeisance: stand up, get educated, and live your life.

Response & Revolution

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]ne of the most distinguishing characteristics of the digital age is its challenge to established systems of control. Nowhere has this been more evident recently than the upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and Libya. While the credit given to social media in these revolutions might be overblown, what the social media web sites like Twitter and Facebook represent expresses a fundamental shift in who controls communication. Traditional channels of media authority are finally being challenged by a new digital zeitgeist. In many instances, monolithic media forms have encountered a wave of digital literacy that, tsunami-like, washes away political, social, and economic structures that have stood for years.

As I write this, Muammar el-Qaddafi’s state-run media organizations wage a narrative battle against the revolutionary forces of Facebook and Twitter while literally trying to crush a political rebellion. The former, an organization of old media forms like television, newspapers, and radio, obfuscate alternative views with official ones, while the latter allows a polyphony of challenges to attack this view both inside and outside of Libya. While the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were able to facilitate political change mostly through the media, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain — and arguably Iran — must translate the battle of words into the material world. Many of these regimes are not afraid to back their one-sided propaganda with force — a tactic not uncommon for the despotic.

A similar battle has been waging for over a decade now, also precipitated by social media: that between the entertainment industry (supported by the government) and the consuming public at large, mostly the young. The model of this industry is based on a physical product that can be controlled by the companies that own the copyright: publishing houses, the Record Industry of America (RIAA), and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Distribution of entertainment has always been easily controlled by these megapowers, not only whose voice was sanctioned for publication, but how that voice was disseminated. Even with the advent of new analog copying technologies becoming widely available to the general public beginning in the 1970s — the VCR and tapedeck — only succeeded in giving the powers-that-be more approved modes of distribution.

It wasn’t until the digital was combined with the Internet that the power of these entertainment corporations was challenged. The old model of distribution was based on a physical object that was easily quantifiable, controllable, and policed. The object — the copy — fit into the traditional economies of morality: it’s wrong to steal. When you steal this object, you’re depriving the owner of of money, enjoyment, his property. However, without the medium, this ethical narrative becomes tenuous — it just doesn’t seem like stealing anymore. Indeed, the benefit of the digital copy is that making one is not only a perfect reproduction, it does not deprive the owner of her enjoyment.

The digital zeitgeist is a challenge of medium. Any student of Marshall McLuhan can tell you that “the medium is the message.” By this, McLuhan meant to call critical attention to the politics of medium — how it controls the ways users process their reality. McLuhan was not interested in content, but in how our use of the devices of communication shaped our lives and our perception of them. Most media before the digital did not allow for what Jean Baudrillard calls “response.” Media, he argues, do not facilitate a communication exchange because information flows one-way; therefore, the powers that control the media also control the message. Watchers of television were in a controlled place at a stated prime time, and most importantly, they were isolated from each other. Not only were they given a message by the television, they remained apart from the mob that might organize a resistance against this “forced socialization” (283).

However, what happens when the medium disappears — when the order of the cathedral is abandoned by its apostates who now prefer the chaos of the bazaar? Eric Raymond’s metaphor refers to the open-source software movement, but it might be equally applicable to entertainment and now politics. The digital revolution has given Everyman a voice that he seems likely to relinquish easily. Globally, humanity has responded to and will continue to respond to the media that has structured their lives to promote another’s agenda. These tides seem to be increasing in number and force, seeking to wash the shore clean of its old monolithic structures. Yet, in the aftermath of such forces of nature, a sense of uncertainty often seems to frighten the newly freed into reestablishing structures of domination.

My interest here is inherently political, if not expressly. As a student of literature, I came to my discipline as many others did: reveling in the content — the thematic concerns of great narrative. However, I wonder how the authority of literature — particularly that of its dominant form, the novel — can withstand or should resist the tide of digital change?

[box type=”info”]See part two: “A Crisis of Interpretation.”[/box]

What’s Mine

[box type=”note”]Overheard while refueling somewhere in Georgia. Please excuse any inaccuracies in my transcript. –Ed.[/box]

[twitter float=”right”] [dropcap]L[/dropcap]ook, son. The reason this country is going to pot is that the people have been distracted from the one true philosophy of America. Now, I don’t mean that to sound too smart — God knows that no one likes that — but what I’m talking about should be self-evident to anyone born in this great land. I guess it’s less of a philosophy than the Supreme American Value. We don’t need to think about it. It just is. Look around. It’s here now: it’s the fastest, the biggest, and the best. It’s about today — right here. Right now. It’s the Spirit of America I’m talking about, son. It’s about what’s mine.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. But just give me a chance to explain, son, before you get all hot. What’s mine is traditional — it’s what America’s all about. It’s why all those illegals want in so bad: it’s a chance to get some of what’s mine. They want it, and it’s no where else on this planet. But, son, this is where we start to run into problems. What’s mine is, well, mine. There’s only so much, and not everyone deserves to have it. You see?

Alright look, son. What’s mine is big, like the great state of Texas. I have the biggest house, on the biggest land. I drive the biggest truck, faster than anyone. I eat the biggest steaks, with the most fries, and a super-sized cup of sweet southern iced tea. My church is big — large enough to house the one-and-only God and seat His mighty congregation. Our Wal-Marts are the biggest in the world, and our canyons the grandest. We have the tallest mountains and the deepest seas, and the heaviest machines to extract their treasures. Our people are the toughest — the salt of God’s Earth. We’ve crawled through the dust and grit to conquer this land — to make it the best in the world. Now, that’s the truth, son, otherwise, why would everyone else want a piece of it . . . a piece of what’s mine? Am I making myself clear?

We have worked hard to make this country what it is today — yes, the best in the world. God’s own land. When we first came here, it was savage — nothing — and it probably would have stayed that way, if it weren’t for the ingenuity of our God-fearing forefathers. They cleared the rubble to make way for what’s mine. Even then, others wanted to take it, but we were strong — we persevered through the hardships and built something the world had never before seen: a great industrialized nation constructed by the sweaty tenacity of our hard-working hands. We transformed the land into what we wanted — what we dreamed about and God provided. We made it what’s mine. And I’ll be damned if I’m gonna give that up to any them — those whiny discontents.

See, that’s the problem, son. Yes, we let them think they had a voice, that they were good enough for what’s mine. That was our first mistake. Diversity? Hell, son, that just confuses people — makes them think that what’s theirs is important. Well, it’s not. They can keep what’s theirs — I certainly want no part of that. Everyday I have to listen to what’s theirs on the television. They try to tell me that what’s mine is too much — that it’s wrong somehow. Son, how can that which built this mighty country be wrong? No, it cannot.

I guess that’s what I’m talking about: what’s mine is wholesome, right — true. What’s theirs isn’t. It’s the opposite: threatening, wrong.

Look at it like this: how can there be more than one religion? Seriously, son. How can both Christianity and Islam be right? True? They cannot. So why would those whiny voices want me to tolerate a religion that I know in my soul is wrong? How am I supposed to stand by and watch while some Arab tries to steal what’s mine? Am I supposed to watch while they fly their planes into my buildings? While they try to use their terrorist money to buy our towns? While they try to kill my God? I will not, son.

Look, they can have their religion — they just need to keep it away from what’s mine. I’m no enemy of diversity. They can have their solar panels, their electric cars, their loud clothing, their evil lifestyles — just keep it away from me. Send it to another country or keep it locked in the closet. They can be wrong if they want to, but they shouldn’t dare try to tell me that what’s theirs is better or even equal to what’s mine.

This is when the gloves come off, son. That’s what’s happening right now in these United States. What’s mine has had enough. We’re not going to tolerate them trying to take what’s mine anymore. They want our guns; they want our freedom; they even want our environment. Global warming? Are they serious? Do they really think they can convince us to stop driving the trucks that we built with our own hands just because some egghead said it’s getting hotter? They’ll do anything to try to get what’s mine. I’m not interested in their facts. I know the truth. It’s part of what’s mine.

We don’t need saving, son. They do. If they would just shut up and listen to what I’m saying, I might let them have a bit. They have to act right; speak when spoken to. They’ve got to earn it. If they want what’s mine, they will only get it on my terms. If they try to ram what’s theirs down my throat, well, son . . . that means war.

[fblike]

The New Old West

Well, it’s happening: we’re one step further toward the new old west.

Apparently, the Georgia legislature feels, almost unanimously, that we citizens need to be armed. The right to bear arms is not enough: we have a compulsion to bear arms. In a gun bill that passed yesterday, 43-10, our wise legislators decided that guns are necessary in churches, bars, and airports. We must protect physically ourselves from errant ministers, other saloon patrons that might be trying to cheat us at cards, and, well, foreigners getting off the plane. Right?

I kept waiting to read about colleges and universities entering the new old west, and I was not disappointed. In a paragraph near the end of the article, we get:

[quote]The bill also grants public colleges and universities the right to determine if guns are allowed on their campuses. An early version of the bill allowed guns on campus, which university officials fought. The current version of the bill allows schools to make their own rules, but it is remains possible for someone to carry a gun just outside of campus. The existing law bans guns within 1,000 feet of a campus.[/quote]

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. Like parishioners, students should pack heat. I know that my lectures are often physically threatening. I know that there’s a lot of racial and gender diversity in my classes, and we also get the occasional Muslim. Who knows when someone different looking and scary will just snap and start running amok. Or worse, when they snap and start saying something that is disagreeable and even controversial, politically challenging, or emotionally hurtful.

Well, we know these days that no one is capable of talking — of compromising in the least. We’re fighting an ideological war here, so we must arm ourselves in the places where that war is most likely to rear its frightening head. Maybe the legislature is wiser than I thought.

I mean, I should probably watch my mouth a bit more than I do. I know I got tenure — a system thought up by the academic elite in order to protect academic freedoms of faculty from politics — but that doesn’t mean I should be able to say what I want with impunity. Some things are just beyond reproach. I need to watch it.

And now, with the increasing likelihood that some of my students might be exercising their right to bear arms in my class, I have even more incentive to watch what I say. There’s nothing like the threat of being shot to keep me in my place. To keep all of us elitists in line, under control, and — you know — silent.

Can this be what all the hoopla is about? Is this part of a political agenda to impose an authoritarian oppression on those who challenge the status quo? The country does seem to be going down the shitter, you know, since that socialist Barack Hussein Obama took office. Don’t we need to protect ’Merica from those who want to steal it from us, including our own government? Indeed, that socialist medical bill just shows that they’re trying to take away our right to be controlled in the way we’re used to: by capitalism and patriarchy. The southern types and teabaggers seem to be the most offended, as they showed their outrage on Capital Hill on Sunday. Maybe someone would have brought a gun? That would show those uppity homosexuals and civil rights activists just what true fear looks like.

What happens when the second amendment trumps the first? Here’s the first amendment of the Bill of Rights:

[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

And the second:

[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]

Laws like the one just passed in Georgia nuance the second and therefore threaten the first. If I know a student is legally carrying a gun in my classroom, what does that say to me? Seriously. Yes, I have a right as a tenured professor and a citizen of the US to say what I want, but those ideological freedoms cannot stand up to the physical reality of a gun in my classroom. Period.

The language from the AJC I quoted above seems to suggest that colleges and universities will be able to institute their own gun policies. But I ask: for how long? The current climate of the university system in just the last year has been one of paranoid liability. Can’t we just see some gun zealot hiring an eager young attorney to sue Macon State or the entire university system because we instituted a policy of no handguns on campus? We can’t afford it. Therefore, I’m sorry to say, I don’t see a policy coming from the BOR or the college outlawing guns. I hope I’m wrong.

So, are we ready for the new old west? I better oil up my ol’ six-shooter.

What’s It Gonna Be Then, Eh?

This weekend, we went out, and I prepped for class. So, I didn’t get any writing finished. OK, that’s bull. I finished “Every You, Every Me” on Friday. It took me most of the day, and it probably should have taken me two days. Writing takes a lot out of me: to do it right takes concentration and persistence. I can usually muster about three hours of that a day before my brain turns to cheesy grits. I blew my whole creative wad for the weekend on Friday. That’s OK, since I had course prep to do, anyway. Besides Saturday was so beautiful, it was impossible to stay inside.

I have two more short story ideas lined up. One will be a quick write, I hope, maybe a couple days and not more than 2000 words. The other will be a bit longer and incorporate ideas from the first, but project them 3000 years in the future. It’ll be a good ol’ space adventure story. I’m psyched to get to both. Maybe this week, if teaching doesn’t get in the way. Autumn helped me with some awesome names last night, so I gotta get started soon.

I read much of Lawrence Lessig‘s Remix and Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange this weekend. I’m teaching both this week, though not in the same class. I’ve taught both before, and I’ve read the Burgess at least four times.

Lessig’s a smart dude, and probably the most insightful and sober voice on intellectual property today. His Remix discusses the disparity between RO (read-only, professionals) and RW (read-write, amateurs) culture: copyright laws favor the former and criminalize the latter. For no good reason. He supports and sees the value of both types, and argues that both need to be protected. However, the way current copyright law is written, it supports an old fashioned economy based on dead media — you know, the tape deck or VCR collecting dust in your attic. Laws that governed copies were easy to enforce in a world where technology made it difficult if not impossible to copy. This has changed, but copyright has not. Therefore, we are criminalizing a generation of copiers, remixers, and computer users — amateur RW culture. Lessig’s a moderate in his thinking, so he should appeal to most thoughtful readers.

A Clockwork Orange is a postmodern classic about choosing to do the right (or wrong) things, being young, and learning the importance of community, morality, and expression. Its appeal for me lies in its proto-cyberpunk style: it’s gritty, unapologetic, and ultraviolent, with plenty of the old in-out-in-out. It’s also a cautionary tale of youth and its relationship to the larger social order, about growing up and ultimately choosing to be a responsible member of society. Burgess’ novel ends on an optimistic note (perhaps it was the influence of the 60s when it was written?): Alec grows up. Famously, that’s where Kubrick differed with Burgess and why the film is ultimately more sinister: Alec doesn’t grow up. The monster is free again at the end, making Kubrick’s vision much more pessimistic. For Burgess, redemption is possible; for Kubrick, maybe not.

We were able to hang out on the porch Saturday night, something Autumn and I have not done together in a while. Saturday was a beautiful spring day, and Dan and Monica invited us over for a few drinks and some conversation. Creighton was there, and I even go to see Anna (more on her soon). We had a great time; we need to do this more often, especially now that the weather is getting nice.

The weekend saw some tragic news, too. A colleague-friend’s son passed this weekend. When an unexpected death occurs, we are all left looking for answers, shocked that we’re ultimately so fragile and helpless. My heart goes out to her and her family. I just wish there was more I could do. I’d even say a prayer if I thought it would do any good at all. I could quote some poetry or say something inspirational, but ultimately death comes down to silence, confusion, and impotence. I’m so sorry.

Burgess’ novel constantly asks “What’s it going to be then, eh?” He means to prod us into answering — into moving — into making a bloody choice. The responsibility is in our hands, ultimately. Yeah, it’s a shitty world sometimes, but as long as we have hands, a heart, and a brain, we must act — keep moving. Even if we do the wrong thing. We can blame others, society, even the gods, but, like Oedipus learns: Apollo ordained his fate, but it was his hands that finally fulfilled it.

That’s a good question to ask at the beginning of each day: “What’s it gonna be then, eh?”

Miracle, Mystery, Authority

Today, my class read Dostoyevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan’s narrative from The Brothers Karamazov. The premise is simple: Jesus returns to earth in the sixteenth century, to a town in the midst of the Spanish Inquisition. The people flock to him, and he does what the son of God is known for: cures some disease and raises a young girl from the dead. This does not escape the notice of the Grand Inquisitor, who promptly has Jesus thrown in a dungeon. The rest of the story is the old Inquisitor railing his captive.

The son of God is to blame for people’s suffering. The reason? Freedom. Jesus gave them the bread of heaven when they were hungry for earthly bread. Jesus allowed them to choose for themselves, rather than prove that he was the son of God. Jesus refused to be the literal king of the world, and instead died so that people could be saved, at least in the afterlife. In all of these decisions, argues the GI, Jesus was wrong.

That is why the GI has twisted Jesus’ message in order to give people what they really want: and end to their freedom. The GI posits that there is nothing more antithetical to human happiness than freedom:

[quote]Freedom, free reason, and science will lead them into such a maze, and confront them with such miracles and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, unruly and ferocious, will exterminate themselves; other, unruly but feeble, will exterminate each other; and the remaining third, feeble and wretched, will crawl to our feet and cry out to us: “Yes, you were right, you alone possess his mystery, and we are coming back to you — save us from ourselves.”[/quote]

The GI asks: “You promised them heavenly bread, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, eternally depraved, and eternally ignoble human race? . . . Oh, never, never will they feed themselves without us!” Humans, given too much freedom will gladly lay that freedom down at the feet of those who are strong enough to offer them real authority, or earthly bread. Humans are too stupid, weak, and fearful to choose for themselves — they must be told what to do with commandments, dicta, laws. They cannot be allowed to choose the wrong course, because they inevitably will.

The GI believes that what he does is actually beneficial for the weak, depraved, ignoble human race. He is the benevolent theocrat giving to the people what their God refused to: “Judge us if you can or dare.”

There is a militarism present in the GI’s reproach, too. He states that while Jesus refused to rule the kingdoms of the world, the leaders of the church did not: “we took Rome and the sword of Caesar from him, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth, the only rulers, through we have not yet succeeded in bringing our cause to its full conclusion.” The implication is that their war against the weak, depraved, ignoble human race is only just beginning. Their war against freedom, choice, and heavenly bread will continue in a guise of the church. The GI’s church, therefore, works against all the interests of Jesus and the Christian God.

While Ivan’s “poem” takes place in sixteenth century Europe, it is, perhaps, even more germane to certain religious and political attitudes in today’s America. Notice science is implicated in the GI’s speech blockquoted above. Science involves reason, what the Enlightenment thinkers believed emanated from God, bringing us closer to His mind through the empirical observation of His creation. Science dispels the darkness, and it can potentially answer the questions about the mysteries of the universe. Yet, science is often anathematized as a product of Satan; how can facts be evil? They are evil when they allow you to turn away from the righteous path — that set out by the GI. Facts mean little to nothing anymore in this country, just interpretations of an “elite” class.

How much of America is plagued by contemporary inquisitors? I often see the right attempting to demonize Obama in this way. After all, as Dostoyevsky’s piece warns, the GI is not far from the political realities of fascism in the twentieth century. Isn’t Obama trying to “cram” health care reform “down the throats” of the American people who don’t want it? Isn’t he trying to bankrupt an already tenuous economy by pushing for environmentally conscious policies and programs? Isn’t he really a Muslim pretending to be a Christian? A Kenyan pretending to be an American? The Devil pretending to be God?

Fascism was a political structure that enamored many of the intellectual elite at the beginning of the twentieth century. Could Obama be falling for the same ideas: that a benevolent ruler might call for a sacrifice of some freedom for the security that we crave? Does he have the best interests of America in mind, or does he have visions of auto de fé?

When economics seems to be the bottom line of “America,” I get wary. I think that Obama is trying to make some progressive social and, therefore, moral changes to this country, but his opposition is awesome. The same folks who claim to be faithful seem to be the same ones arguing against health care reform. The same folks who seem to have enough money to purchase whatever health care they desire seem to be the ones who don’t want us, the middle class, to have it. It’s like there’s a club here in ’Merica that some folks are protecting with the rhetoric of morality and economics, no matter what it costs. It’s not their souls at stake, but their pocketbooks.

We suffered though eight dark years of lies, jingoism, self-righteousness, immorality, fear, mistrust, thoughtlessness, ineptitude, and holy war. And I’m afraid that the GI might be right. Obama hasn’t had a chance, but folks are already screaming for the return of the right: “Feed us, for those who promised fire from heaven did not give it.” I hope that’s not true, yet the Democrats can’t seem to get their shit together. People are getting impatient. The Teabaggers are getting louder. The right seems to be regrouping. Though currently all they need to do is resist. Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” seems to have become the slogan for today’s Republican Party.

Perhaps the elephant should be replaced by a frowning Grand Inquisitor. Those who scream loudest about freedom seem to be the ones who want to take it away from us. I vote for more miracle and mystery, but less authority.

Apple, I Love You. Apple, I Hate You.

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ith the imminent release of the iPad on April 5, it and its older cousins the iPhone and iPod Touch are getting increasing attention by the tech pundits. While most of what I read are from pro-Apple sites — and are therefore biased, some of what I read is from pro-not-Apple sites — and are therefore biased. I have an iPhone, and I generally like it, but it seems to stand for everything I despise about where technology is headed. I love and hate Apple, Inc. Here’s why.

Since Apple is a hardware and software company, the two ‘wares work well together. Apple’s design principles stress ease-of-use, elegance, and professional results. I’m speaking, here, of the MacOS, an operating system I have used for about 25 years. The current MacOS is built on open-source software and is perhaps the best available for any price. I know Windoze users will argue, and I frankly don’t care, nor is Windoze v. Mac even relevant here. Essentially, Windoze and the Mac are the same: they are both proprietary operating systems written by corporations for the sole purpose of making their respective companies wealthy and powerful.

At the heart of this debate is the perennial open source software versus proprietary software question. I have an iPhone for some of the same reasons that I prefer to use the MacOS. Since it’s proprietary, certain standards in interface and design keep my computing experience consistent and predictable. The iPhone (and soon, iPad) are new products, so I’m more willing to cut them the slack I wouldn’t with a traditional computer operating system. They’ll hammer out the wrinkles soon. Where the iPhone gets in trouble is new territory: not only is the operating system proprietary, Apple now controls what we — the users — can do with it in a draconian way, it seems.

Unlike the MacOS, the iPhoneOS is even more closed; I might even call it super-proprietary. On the former, I cannot change the code of the OS, but I can download programs that can significantly alter the operating system and how I use it. I can install modifications and other software that the powers-that-be might not like me having, like BitTorrent, pornography, warez, cracks, and other socially unacceptable forms of software that give the middle finger to any company (or person) that doesn’t like it. This is a question of my personal ethical codes and scruples. Apple supplies the container, but I can put anything in that container that I want, including elements that might not be good for it or me. I purchased a computer complete with operating system. And even though it comes with a proprietary end user license that I have to agree to before using said computer, I’ve never read the license and am pretty certain I’ve violated it many times. The point is: even with a proprietary operating system as we have known them from the beginnings of the personal computer until now, I can choose to ignore the licenses and the legal limits the corporations try to impose on me. I choose, not them.

Yet, it seems that these sorts of mostly open operating systems allow customers — users, programmers, hackers, and crackers (are we all just criminals?) — too much freedom. Enter the iPhone and the super-proprietary operating systems, or what we might more accurately describe as the closed-source-to-modification systems. With Apple’s app store as gateway to my iPhone/Pad/Pod, I can no longer really decide what to put on my computer — Apple decides for me and then gives me a pretend choice. This is analogous to Burger King being the only restaurant in town and saying “have it your way.” This is not a real choice, is it?

Tim Bray, Google’s newest Android bitch, puts it this way:

[quote]

The iPhone vision of the mobile internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what.

It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger.

I hate it.

I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great, because freedom’s not just another word for anything, nor is it an optional ingredient.

[/quote]

Yes, he is a corporate spokesman, but he is also exactly right.

Every fiber of my being should be resisting Apple and their path to techno-tyranny. I have championed Apple over Microsoft for years, but it seems that with the success of the iPod, then iPhone, and soon the iPad, they are becoming just as evil as corporations I’ve demonized in the past. I keep hoping that it will not turn out this way, but every day I seem to read something to the contrary. First came news of alleged stock malfeasance, then Jobs’ reputation as a techno-despot, then Fair Play DRM, then its rigid restrictions on how I use my iPod, then its exclusive deals with cell provides, to the iPhone/PadOS. As much as I wish it wasn’t, Apple seems to be changing into a typical ’Merican corporation.

So what are my responsibilities as a citizen and a consumer? I do have an iPhone, but my contract with AT&T is up in June. No matter what I do, it seems a necessity to sign a two-year contract with a cell provider (boooo!), but I could get an open-source phone, like one that runs Android. That leaves me buying hardware from another corporation, like Motorola or HTC. Are they really any different? Yes, Apple controls the applications I can put on my phone, but there are still more to choose from that I will ever need or want. Yes, Apple’s developer license is crap, and it needs to be fixed. Apple did get rid of their music DRM. Is it as bad as Bray and others make it sound?

I currently use Ubuntu on a cheap Acer laptop I bought last November, and it’s fine. But, I find myself missing my Mac more everyday.

Apple, I used to only love you, but your actions lately have been inspiring a lot of hate, consternation, and thoughts of jumping ship. Maybe you should consider that, change some of your policies, and make amends. Please don’t push me away. We’ve been together too long.

Rights

We watched Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story last night. It was what I expected. That’s why I like Michael Moore, I think. He is anti-establishment, iconoclastic, and just doesn’t take shit. This makes him hated by the right and provides a necessary counterpoint to the dominance of the radical right media, like Fox News. Here are some of my thoughts about Moore’s latest film.

Capitalism is the unquestioned, de facto economic system of the United States. It makes propaganda out of the belief that “all men are created equal.” By selling this idea to typical American citizens, it maintains the status quo: 5% of Americans have more wealth than the other 95% put together. Capitalists pay lip service to the American dream of wealth and prosperity — that, if you work hard enough, one day you just might make it, too. And the only way to make it is to embrace the system that has produced the world’s wealthiest people: capitalism.

Capitalism has turned America into a plutocracy, or rule by the wealthy. If you have any doubt, just look to the recent Supreme court decision that grants corporations even more power to influence the politics of this country. This debate is called “corporate personhood” and turns my stomach.

Moore illustrates how the capitalist system is amoral at best, and immoral in its routine practices. It upholds wealth over welfare. Its practices are counter-Christian, though ironically capitalism’s strongest proponents claim to be the most devout. Moore’s narrative even upholds the Catholic church as anti-capitalist, without going into their 2000 history of oppression. Maybe Bill Maher already made that film? Capitalism, like religion, is a mass delusion that helps only a few while hurting the majority.

Moore suggests that democracy might be a better economic model, or at least a more equitable one. One where the CEO makes the same money as the assembly line worker. Where all decisions are made my everyone that they will affect. Where all workers are treated the same, since they have the same stakes in the success or failure of the company. All are human beings with equal rights.

This sounds good, and just might work in economics where it has failed in politics. We Americans, perhaps as a result of capitalism, love money. The almighty dollar seems to be the measure of all success in this country. Therefore, when money’s on the line, people might pay more attention than they would when voting on some more abstract idea. Money is real. Politics are, well, not for most Americans. Democracy only works when citizens are engaged and educated about the issues and potential consequences of those issues on their everyday lives. If anything, much of America lives in the corporate fantasy world (PDF) of Fox News and MSNBC. No wonder democracy seems to be failing.

The best part of Moore’s film was the end, when he shows President Roosevelt’s last State of the Union address. FDR proposes the second bill of rights, perhaps the most progressive political statement I have heard from the twentieth century, and it was in 1944. It’s worth repeating in its entirety:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people — whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth — is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Can you imagine if Obama suggested such a thing today? Glenn Beck‘s head just might explode all over his chalk board. These rights are antithetical to capitalism, a system that has one goal: profit at any cost.

At one point, Moore implicitly asks the question: what’s wrong with socialism? Why does it seem to be so demonized in the media? In many ways, it’s what the defeated countries of the second World War received: constitutions that made the government on the side of the people, not of the corporations. Instead, we the people continue to support that which dehumanizes us and even profits from our deaths. When will it stop?

The film suggests that the election of Obama could be a turning point, but there remains doubt. I, for one, am dubious though hopeful. Can Obama really go against the corporate interests that helped get him elected? So far, it seems not.

Americans, what’s wrong with socially progressive political and economic policies?

I liked Moore’s closing statement, and I’m paraphrasing: I refuse to live in a country that allows such a flagrant disregard for the lives of others. And I’m not going anywhere. Can’t we do something?

Shooting with Nathan

I seem to be preoccupied with guns lately, and Nathan is not helping. We spent just over an hour at the Macon Police Department’s shooting range yesterday. Nathan was practicing his black ops shooting techniques for something he’s writing, and I was educating myself about handguns.

One of the first things I learned is that owning and shooting a gun is not inexpensive. His gun, an HK 9mm, would cost around $1200 new, he said. No, I’m not considering buying a gun, and, come to think of it, I never really considered handgun prices. Doesn’t $1200 seem a bit high? I was thinking, maybe, a couple of hundred bucks for a gun. Bullets, too, were pricey. I bought 50 rounds and a paper target for over $20. Yikes.

I made this purchase at Arvin’s, a pawn shop in downtown Macon. When I arrived, Nathan had already gotten what we needed. Arvin’s highlights their gun sales, as that’s the first thing anyone would notice upon entering. The first thing I saw was a dude in cammo holding — no, stroking — an assault rifle. This was not the last stereotype we were to encounter that day. I’ve always wondered why anyone would need an assault rifle, unless he plans to become a terminator, a disgruntled ex-employee, or a member of a religious fringe group. This guy was interested. Very interested. We got our bullets and left, so I never did see whether cammo man’s hard-on led to a sale. Just as well.

We drove east of town on I-16. It was a beautiful day: I would even go so far as to say it was our first Spring day of the year. The sun shone through the Mini’s open moonroof, and the cool air was punctuated by rifle fire as we approached the range. Since we were there mid-day on a Monday, the range was remarkably free of shooters, according to Nathan. I smiled at this fact, thinking that I wanted my first time to be as free of distractions as possible. As we got out of the car, I watched the three riflemen shoot in succession. The shots were too loud, making my insides start and my nerves tighten. I didn’t think I’d get used to that.

We signed in and headed to the range. A Macon Police car was parked just off to the side of the range; the cop — an older, tattooed guy with a handlebar mustache — greeted us: “We’ll make some room for you guys.” Rifles lined the carpeted tables. The guy to the left looked like he had a sniper’s setup: his rifle had a stand — a tripod of death at the ready. The guy in the right looked like he had a shotgun. Both rifles were loud. Maybe I mentioned that already? Nathan had brought ear protection for me; these big blue mouse ears became a permanent part of my head for the next hour.

These gun enthusiasts are a garrulous, gregarious sort. The rifleman on the left seemed to really want to talk. He left his wife and two children in the minivan to the side of the range while he practiced his killshot. His rifle waited patiently while we heard this guy’s life story. I’d repeat it here, but I don’t want to lose you, my one reader. Suffice it to say, Nathan’s handgun did nothing, until we lost our company. Finally.

Nathan explained the workings of the handgun to me. Treat the gun as if it’s always loaded. Aim it down and away, even from your feet. Here’s the safety: engaged and disengaged. Here’s your clip; you push and twist the bullets into it, up to ten. Once the clip is in place, you cock the gun by quickly pulling the top of the body back and letting go. Hold the gun in your right hand and brace it with your left. Stand with your left foot forward, so you give anyone shooting at you a smaller target. Arms should be rigid, but bent slightly. Release the safety, take aim, and pull the trigger.

"G" Marks the Spot

We took turns shooting at the same target, set up about 25 feet distant. In between, we’d take a Sharpie and mark our successes: his bullet holes were labeled “N,” and mine “G.”

“Always be wary of what’s around you,” he explained, “and consider what’s behind your target.” His advice was appropriate for both the range and at home. If an intruder comes into the house, and you shoot at him, what will you hit if you miss? A school, a house, a tree?

We finished our ammo in about an hour. I enjoyed the experience, and I would like to repeat it. While I can’t say that I’m any less nervous about handguns, at least I feel better educating myself on how to properly use one.

If I ever had to.

Ha Ha?

This cartoon by Mike Luckovich was forwarded by our VPAA today, on the cusp of announced budget cuts. I wish I could say it’s funny. I think I know what tomorrow’s blog post will be about.