Archive for the Political Category

Is Your God An Advertisement?

Posted in Political, Uncategorized on July 23, 2009 by redbearbluebear

As of this very moment of writing, there have been 4,318 American casualties in Iraq since the initial occupation of the country.  There have been an estimated 1,320,110 Iraqi deaths.  There have been 712 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan since the invasion.  There are 138 international journalists dead from participation in military reporting.  And perhaps most shockingly, 1,306 contractor employee deaths in Iraq – almost a third of the military death total – and rising.  They are all still rising.   Why?

“God.”

This is, of course, the usual response from our last president, George W. Bush.  This was a selling point for all the action, pushed daily through Christianity-based fliers distributed by Donald Rumsfeld himself.  Whenever a tough military decision was made, or more lives were put at risk, the justification was always that God had made some kind of declaration, and since the 2004 election was a mandate for President Bush’s power, there would be no reason to second guess not only God, but our very own citizens.  And it’s not to say that God is a poor thing to die for, or an ultimately ridiculous guiding force.  But when we look at the concept of God, (or for some, the absolute power of God,) we have to realize that your God isn’t my God.  Or at least not right now.

A recent study has shown that 15% of Americans consider themselves atheists, and some even suggest that the rates for teenage atheists could be double or triple that amount.  This comes dangerously close to toping the number of people who actually approved of Bush’s job as President.  However, this group receives almost no consideration when it comes to public policy, and has only one representative in the United States Senate: Barry Sanders from Vermont, (who perhaps by no coincidence, is also a socialist.) But is our concern really an atheist stronghold in American politics, or rather the unreasonable focus on Christianity in America?

Four names should appear familiar from recent encounters with the media: David Vitter, Larry Craig, John Ensign, and Mark Sanford.  All are successful Republican politicians.  All have been considered leaders in their religious communities.  And all have been involved in extramarital affairs.  Furthermore, they were instrumental in the outcry against Bill Clinton and his off-color dalliances, scandals, and lies.  Obviously, Clinton’s actions are inexcusable, but his position of power was not achieved on the basis of “family values,” “morality voting,” or “the power of Christ.”  Again, it is God who is found to be a uniting force of evil – a gigantic trust of misused emotion. 

God is being denounced by his very own followers, not atheists.  The same people that claim him as their guiding force, their all powerful light of truth, are using Him for their own well being.  To win elections. To avoid prosecution.  To justify actions that by all means are unjustifiable.   Are all Christians abusing their faith?  Not at all.  But shouldn’t we, as an oft-described “Christian Nation,” be more upset with those who are using God as a means for criminality?  As a means for destruction?  As a means for deplorable behavior?  The anger should never be directed toward atheists.  They have their beliefs, (and far better records when it comes to criminal behavior,) and you have yours.  But if you want a worthy fight,  abandoning party lines or partisan action, why not fight against those who are cheapening the word of God?  Is your God an advertisement?

(Written 6.19.09)

Winning is Sinning: Or : How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Despise The Entire Jive

Posted in Political, Uncategorized on July 4, 2009 by redbearbluebear

Could it all be a dream?  A silly, demented, self-important dream that could never possibly be reality?  A hidden little corner of the human mind that has somehow clawed it’s way to consciousness, like a badger from back of the cerebellum, piercing through all the mundane transactions of give and take and straight through the forehead.  Yes – straight through my forehead hangs the zombified fist of the Republican Party, taking it’s last breaths before wilting away like a forgotten rose: a truly beautiful piece of earth that bloomed many years ago and has been deteriorating ever since.  With Nixon came a blustery winter.  And with Reagan a rejuvenated spring.  Bush II was the faded lifeless fall.  And where do we go from here?

“And where do we go from here?  And which is the way that’s clear?  Still looking for that blue jean, baby queen.  Prettiest girl I’ve ever seen.  See her shake on the movie screen …Jimmy Dean…” 

And it is this blue jean, baby queen that comes as the final nail in a proverbial coffin this evening, the coffin of an entire party filled with vampires and street preachers, degenerates and crusaders – all going down in a fireball of pompous certainty, untamed bigotry, and the most hypocritical positioning imaginable.  Pure apocalyptic beauty, a Shakespearean tragedy, all rolled into the guise of a value-oriented organization.  The gorgeous siren of backwoods intolerance has left her post, and with her goes the last bit of elected confidence left on the right wing scale.

If Palin is indeed the paradoxical baby queen, then Mark Sanford can be none other than Jimmy Dean – the rebel without a cause.  The romantic bad-boy with a bigger picture than the restraints of his career and the scorn of his community.  His press conferences are like watching a mid-life crisis in action, filled with long-faced absences of thought – pure delusion at times – before awakening to find the dumbfounded mob of reporters and supporters alike, sharing the same thoughts of confusion.  His Argentine princess, a news reporter herself, and a beautiful specimen of adultery if one has ever been created, seems to be his true desire.  Not the sympathy of a nation, nor the forgiveness of his constituency.  No – just the love of his self-described “soul mate,” the women of his garbled dreams, and wispy little cloud that he tends to stare at through misty lenses. 

Yes, where do we go from here?  Do I dance on the graves of the fallen?  Do I drag John Ensign back into the picture for reference, or David Vitter for good measure, and create a Christmas card mugshot for the liberal friends and family?  Can I even relish in the fact that these elected men and women have all gutted their own chances of political fortune, or do I sweat at the reality that they have already been a considerable success?  With every scandal that seeps it’s way through the wire, I question my own political desires and regret all my off-the-cuff remarks.  If only life were like an internet history file – another subject worthy of fret – which could be deleted after abuse.  Have I really won at all?  Or have I been contributing to the larger target of sin!  And have my efforts been in vain, and have my dreams already been extinguished by the reality of behavior?  Is my party next?  Are my heroes soon to be destroyed? 

But I rest easy for now, with the zombie fist dangling from my mind.  The entire party drooling all over themselves, trying to come up with a solution for their demise.  There aren’t enough sandbags in the Sahara to keep the water from flooding the sadistic visions of the GOP, and the people know it all!  Drippy little grins have turned into horrified slobbering confessions and the world can see it all!  Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave, a bone-dry skeleton with a perfect haircut still meticulously preserved.  (I often wonder, merely wonder, how Russia can display the body of Lenin as a hero to a nation, and how the Republicans have allowed Reagan’s body to rot underground.  The savior to our country!  The messiah of the spoken word!  A Christ-like figure for all the praise, the greatest leader of all time!  Underground.  In a modest hole.  No Rushmore.  No mummified presentation.  Just a pile of radioactive perfection with the flag wrapped round and round.)

And here we are – the Democrats (dirty words) with all the glory of piety behind us, and almost nothing to show for it.  The hopeful 60 member Senate has been achieved, and will be squandered without thought.  Health care will be tarnished, the gay agenda left to drown, and all of the hopes that floated us through the finish line will fall to the ground like an ominous fog over Washington – the last reminder of a dream deferred.  The last reminder of the slugs that truly run our country on both sides of the aisle, slowly sucking the optimism from the atmosphere and leaving nothing but a slimy trail of waste.  Literal waste.  From the Senate floor to your front door, with no end in sight.  The promises left unfulfilled from years of apathy and greed – and these are the good guys.  The ones to appreciate.  Because they’re merely wasting our time, but taking advantage for themselves.

It’s the ones that lose both – our trust and their own kingdoms – that are really the ones to revile.  The ones to look at with upturned noses and simply thoughts: You wasted everything we gave you.  An entire nation of people that accept the lizards of civil service and never think twice of reelection.  As long as we aren’t too burdened with the tremendous price of fuel, or the loss of cable television, or the bacon on our tables, we will vote again and again for the same disgusting tyrants of brain-washed, filthy bloodlust.  Nixon, if nothing else, was a winner.  But Jimmy Carter was a shame.

And the shames are who we should be looking for to drive this country away from public policy, and instead into the fields of self-reliance, peace, and contribution.  Outer-Washington leadership that doesn’t have to answer to the angry taxpayer, the ambitious lobbyist, or the pile of dogshit in a suit.  Where are the dreamers that don’t need the power?  Where are the ones satisfied with pure change – for the better – for the people – for the elegant romance of life? 

Dead.  All dead.  And mostly forgotten.  The ones that got away.

We can never win – Democrats, Republicans, non-partisan babes of middle-ground.  We are all in this together.  And the dying party gives the chance for the thriving party to ruin all the gleaming ideas they once held.  The element of power will take over, the wasteful shake of power-rabies finally tearing through the world.  And we, again, are losers.  The same ones that fought so hard for liberties and life will be the casualties of victory.  The casualties of our own fight.  The same fight that we “won.”

“The buck stops here,” Truman said.  But the muck keeps rolling on.

The Beauty of the Conservative Fox

Posted in Political, Uncategorized on June 24, 2009 by redbearbluebear

If asked to punish the opposition to my political dreams, the very soul that wishes to crush me and leave me for dead inside a trash compactor outside of Louisville, there are truly only two considerable options that rush blindly through my mind.  The first, of course, is to hate them with every fiber of my being and to spend the rest of my life committing a whole overflowing cornucopia of sins in order to extinguish their flame.  Or I could date them – considering the female gender specifically – and put them through all of the lukewarm Applebee’s dinners they can swallow before sucking them dry through the torment of marriage.

Ah, sweet sadistic fantasies – will you ever leave my mind?

God forbid they ever crawl from my ears like tarantulas of virtue.  A tarantula of virtue that keeps reminding me (in the sacred language of the arachnids, very tricky – very tricky!) that I find the conservative breed the most alluring.  And after years of dating soppy liberals with sloughs of social problems and an overwhelming lack of foresight, I am ready to admit that the liberal end of the political spectrum is the weakest of possible options.  Feminists eating feminists and spike-haired teetotalers are damn attractive – damn attractive! – but lack the little twist that I so much enjoy.  It’s amazing how conventional and expected the life of a drug addict is.  Waking up and going to “work”, at different times of course, but always maintaining a similar routine that seems mundane for the subject at hand.

If you’re going to lead a life of hard drugs, abuse, or simple excess… you better stand out every once in a while.  You’ll be forgotten – (And the corpse will rot without notice.)

And the beauty of the conservative female is as follows: Passionate structure.  It no longer matters that your views are incorrect, (or misguided, or ignorant, or perhaps just obsolete,) but instead that you believe in something at all.  You believe that the lives of coulda-beens and shoulda-beens are more important than our society of ares – maybe you’re right!  Perhaps my eyes have been blinded by the stinging sweat of nervous do-gooders.  And damn! I’ve invested so much!  But that’s why I have my soft spot for you, righty foxes, and even your mothers, as well.

Two champagne glasses filled with gorgeous certainty and unrivaled confidence create the legs of the ideal conservative woman.  Perfectly tanned – spoiled even – by a sun that has shone just for them.  And in turn, they shine for me.  For you.  For everyone, some would insist.  It was Winston Churchill who once said, “The perfect set of legs could make me a Nazi in seconds.”  Don’t look that up, it’s speculative at best, but a valid point all the same.  (Churchill thought it, I’m sure, and isn’t that good enough?)  And I say in complete seriousness, with a hastily mixed concoction of shame and pleasure smeared across my face, that a sincere Republican woman is more attractive than her counterpart.

But Christ! Have I gone soft?  Have I lost all sense of convictions?  Have I been snagged by the evil glue that seeped from the pores of Richard Nixon?  The same disgusting paste that some life-long Republicans can’t seem to pry themselves away from?  Have I lost my mind to the extent that I would chance my entire life in the hands of a right-wing nutjob in high heels?

Yes – and it’s a beautiful downfall that tastes sweeter with each passing day.

And I’d fill an entire newspaper with personal ads suggesting the very same treacherous thought that I’ve been hinting at for so long: The young Republican woman, (much like the ideal young Republican male,) has class.  A shine.  A dare I say blissful quality that has no competition, and unsurpassed brilliance in moments of defense.  When they argue, they make me smile.  And when they win, in those rare and bittersweet moments, I get butterflies as though I were performing “Stairway to Heaven” on an ivory kazoo at Wembley Stadium.  A certain wonderfully nervous moment I can’t suppress with distain for neo-con rhetoric.  Five spoonfuls of liberal sugar get all lumped up in my throat.  It’s a tremendous, awful experience I always treasure behind closed doors.

Doors I have used to hide shrines of Republican idols, both named Mike.  Wallace and Ditka, respectively, make me grit my teeth with anxious frustration.  And doors that hide file cabinets of complaints about immigration, and concessions to faith-based ideologies, and certain sympathies for Nixon.  He thought he was right!  Go figure.  And I’ve come to accept such pitiful excuses from lizards of California politics. 

And the hope – the subtle dream – is that behind a closed door lies a beautiful right-wing fanatic who can agree to disagree.  Or at least is willing to fight dirty – the only way to fight – with chairs, or lamps, or the overturned urn of my Libertarian father smashed across both our skulls, leaving us in a swirling pile of blood and filth and rhetoric.  And love.  Perhaps not the same dream that Dr. King shared with the masses, but a vision of perfection nonetheless.

And a wonderful realization of insanity.

Dig Your Graves Now, Liberal Nation! We Are Swine That Cannot Be Harvested For Meat!

Posted in Political, Uncategorized on June 15, 2009 by redbearbluebear

Do you remember all the left wing blowhards that came out after September 11th and claimed it was all an intricate plot by the U.S. government to gain sympathy for a full-scale attack on the Middle East?  The hullabaloo over films like Loose Change and Zeitgeist?  Sometimes I’d like to forget.  Did you know there are people out there who think that Pearl Harbor was a similar situation, allowed to happen for the sake of solidifying support for U.S. involvement in World War II?   For years I’ve had liberal nutjobs breathing down my neck about everything from the JFK assassination to the idea that America actually caused the great Asian Tsunami a few years back.  Most would agree that these proposals are filled with holes and faulty logic, and I’ve never attached myself to anything of the sort.  But after a while, you have to rock the boat.

Speaking of conspiracy theorists, it was just last week that James Von Braun shot up the Holocaust Museum in D.C., voicing a significant stance of defiance against the well-documented tragedy of the Holocaust.  Von Braun is well into his late eighties, prompting lefty commentator Bill Maher to remark, “New Rule: You can’t call someone a neo-Nazi if they are older than the Nazi-Nazis.”  And indeed, it seems a bit more than strange to think that this elderly bigot was planning to target not only the Holocaust Museum, but a number of other Washington D.C. locations, as well as Fox News headquarters.  And to be honest, after years of scrutiny, I imagine Fox News would have been the most well prepared for the situation. 

But even more bizarre about his quest, including his apparent disgust for Roger Ailes’s Fox News, is the fact that Von Braun is about as far right as you can get on the political compass.  He blogged about his hate for civil rights and the equality of the races, and a number of other more mundane topics that would make my blog look like Disney World in print.   But the Nazis are a fundamentally right wing group, full of absurd claims that rival every bit of insanity that Socialism would dare to bring about.  Yes, it might seem far-fetched to some, but the Nazi ideology would be a threat to President Obama and his radical policies of uber-nationalization. 

Let’s look back further, to just around two weeks ago when abortion provider George Tiller was gunned down in front of his church.  The motive was very clear: pro-life advocates were fed up with the idea of the most extreme of Bible-based sins, late term abortions, and they were going to put a stop to it.  At this point, there are only a handful of professionals willing to perform the procedure, making it one of the most dangerous professions in the country.  Regardless of your beliefs about abortion or the like, most would agree that the actions carried out were beyond extreme, and dripping with irrationality.  Death on top of “death,” (the quotations placed in respect for my own beliefs on the topic,) brings a familiar quotation to mind: An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

But to provide a more intimate and realistic quotation, straight from my facebook feed directly after the murder, “I’m sorry George Tiller, but you had it coming.”

To branch off into a tangent for just a moment, I want to say something directly from the heart, (a place that has been neglected in most of my writing, and one I promise to avoid for the rest of this piece.)  No one should ever protest a funeral.  In the name of your God, in the name of your country even, no one should ever physically protest a funeral.  Even surrounding the topic of murder or rape, my position remains the same.  A human being has died, for better or worse, and can we as a people not respect their dismissal from earth?  They are not here to witness your upset, nor is your protest seen as a shining beacon of truth.  Those who desecrate the grave sites of both saints and sinners deserve nothing less than shame themselves.  Mother Theresa nor Hitler should ever be lowered into the ground in front of a crowd seething with anger.  They have left this world.  Why would you dare to elongate the process?

Having realized the increasing length of this spiel, allow me to quickly cut to the chase: There was a shooter in New York just a couple months ago who picked off 13 victims in a matter of minutes.  The shooter killed himself, so his intentions were never fully realized, but several columnists and bloggers came out with a similar theory: the man was so upset by the idea that gay marriage had been legalized in Iowa that he went on self-destructive rampage of bigotry.  And to go even further, several suggested that the election of Barack Obama as President had triggered some kind of gun scare.  Basically, the election of a liberal president frightened gun owners, believing he would attempt to revoke their right to bare arms, and caused a frenzy of trigger-happy Constitutionalists.  To preserve their 2nd Amendment Rights, people would be using their guns more often than ever – even to commit heinous acts.  Now what point these right-wing writers were trying to present had initially been lost in a dizzying fog, but I’m beginning to connect some comically conspiratorial dots.  It was all a warning.

Holocaust Museum Shooter: Neo-Nazi against Civil Rights, as well as belief in the Holocaust, (a liberal Jewish myth.)
Abortion Doctor Shooter: Far-right religious fanatic taking a vigilante stance against the sin of abortion.
New York Shooter Justification: Anti-gay marriage and protection of 2nd Amendment principles. 

Is anyone else seeing a pattern of far-right hate? 

The Conspiracy Theory: The American far-right is planning an ultimatum – dispose of this liberal government or people are going to die. 

Is that crazy enough for you?  To suggest that a party that can’t even decide what positions they are for or against could be involved in the organization of a national conspiracy?  May I remind you that none of us have given Bush enough credit as a political mastermind.  But all the setup is there, if not structured at all by conventional party doctrine.  To begin the Republican Revolution would be very simple, and would most likely begin with a speech from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, (a slimy amphibian of a name for a slimy amphibian of a politician):

“My friends – we are all proud Americans.  Proud to serve our country in times of need and proud to protect our country in the wake of a threat to our freedoms.  And for far too long now, our nation has been under attack from the liberal agenda and the Socialist ideology that has plagued our recent misfortunes.  America has spoken out, in a sincere moment of revolution, and lives have been lost in response to the tyranny of a Democratic government.  Can we as a nation cast our political differences aside and embrace a simple truth: only one party can keep this country safe.  Only one party can protect our people with certainty and unrivaled power.  This is the time for a Republican movement – a movement created for the safety of our citizens – to end this uprising of violence.  It is plain to see that a Democratic government promotes nothing but unfortunate death, and in order for these tragedies to stop, we must bring back our Republican house.  We must bring back our Republican Senate.  And we must bring back a God-fearing President, a conservative of moral fiber, who will lead us back into the shining light of God, and away from the disgusting reign of liberal insanity that will forever be seen as an oil slick in the annals of time.  God bless America, and God bless our troops.”

Because in order for any speech to be credible, you have to bless the troops – God forbid you not do so, you are a commie, a killer, a swine.  And the chants of “Heil Gingrich” will be heard across the land, and Sarah Palin will rise again as the charismatic leader of the Republican nation, accompanied by any number of well-dressed zombies, from Eric Cantor to Bobby Jindal.  Mitt Romney’s a Mormon, such an unfortunate thing to be in the middle of a Christian theocracy, and will immediately be trampled in the great Revolution Riots of 2012, perhaps by Mike Huckabee himself, who very well might become the next chief of this great land, under the close and personal guidance of Jesus Christ.  Yes, I can see it all now. 

And the liberals will be herded up like cattle and sent to the Gulags of Colorado and Montana.  They must be exterminated to prevent further travesties!  The ghost of Hubert Humphrey will try and comfort the weary prisoners, but it is no use, because the liberal species has always been a spineless one, and Humphrey’s hulking frame casts nothing but a dismal shadow on the entire lot.  The only benefit to being spineless is that the opposition realizes you are no good for physical labor, so you will be put out of your misery immediately.  A whole colony of starving Socialist dogs. 

Have I made it far-fetched enough?

Obviously, the idea of a neo-con takeover shouldn’t scare any one quite yet, but as usual, my actual point is hidden somewhere in a mess of sarcasm and self-important rhetoric.  There IS a rush of conservative violence, and there IS a need to bring this idea to the forefront before it gets out of hand.  It truly isn’t a partisan issue, but rather a humanitarian one, and perhaps even a practical suggestion.  Violence in this arena is not justified, especially considering the usual presentation of a tolerant God.  People cannot take things into their own hands for the “sake of humanity.”  The same goes for the liberal eco-terrorists, destroying people’s livelihoods for the salvation of the environment.  The side is not important.  As my government teacher Mr. Remmers once perfectly commented, Al Queda are extremists of Islam – a religion that has been vilified in recent years by the Western world.  The Ku Klux Klan are religious extremists as well – of Christianity. 

One more little (ha) article about tolerance.  One more reaching grasp for a better world, or at least a better circle of readership.  And if last week’s stinging comment means anything, (“Dear Alex Denison.  You are a faggot,”) it promises that I won’t be shutting up any time soon.  Just one more thing Joe Biden and I share, (besides a loving relationship) – we can never manage to keep our mouths shut.

Alex Denison, Ph.D.

Gay Filet With Freedom Fries

Posted in Political, Uncategorized on May 31, 2009 by redbearbluebear

It may come as a bit of a surprise, but I am not a saint.  The greatest title that I could possibly allow is “prophet,” but even that is a bit of a stretch, but a wonderful opening line at cocktail parties and bar mitzvahs, (the Jews eat it up!)  But I have to admit, and give myself a pat on the back, that I have refrained from indulging myself in societal taboos or religious sins.  Believe it or not, I have yet to have an abortion.  I have never been involved in drugs, illegal or otherwise.  And perhaps the greatest of shocks, I am not a homosexual, nor ever plan to be. 

But if I wanted to partake in any of these activities, I believe I should have the right.

(Allow me to quickly say something about a labeling epidemic that I have become a victim of.  I hear it quite frequently – more often from females – that I seem like a guy that “could be gay.”  I don’t necessarily take this as an insult, but I’d like to point out that I am, for lack of a better word, disgusting.  Despite the fact that I wear collared shirts nearly every day and involve myself in the arts, I also am a chauvinistic mess of filth and fantasy, the likes of which have only been seen in single-digit centuries.  To be strikingly to the point, the average human being would find much of my behavior more disgusting then the thought of slug-on-slug  blue-collar sodomy.  You dig?)

But to get back to the point, for the safety of all involved, I have a quite serious point to make.  Recently, a firestorm of chattering has come up over the topic of gay marriage – and rightfully so.  In the eyes of organized religion, homosexuality is one of the most cardinal sins, and the basis for more anger and faith-based frustration than perhaps any other area.  And the arguments can be made that religion must be separated from government, (boring,) or that there are plenty of other sins, perhaps more private sins, that don’t receive the kind of attention that same-sex partnerships do.  Did you know that 90% of men and nearly 65% of women masturbate on a regular basis?  Last time I checked, this is fairly looked down upon in the eyes of churches across the globe.  A tremendous waste of possible procreation to boot.  Yes, I’m talking about scattered semen residue in the middle of a potentially poignant article about personal rights, but who’s keeping track?  Certainly not the Catholic Church, pro-family organizations, nor Newt Gingrich.  That’s for sure. 

And in the past I have apologized for length, but I won’t do that any longer.  I’ve read arguments from every end of the spectrum and from people that honestly don’t know a thing other than the fact that male and female genitalia aren’t designed as they are out of pure coincidence.  Which is another argument all together: my Wrangler isn’t designed to take sharp corners at breakneck speeds or drive through 3 feet of standing water, but I do so because I can.  We’re a very independent species, human beings.  We challenge the limitations of our existence.  It’s kind of cute, really.

Which brings me to the larger point that I am desperately trying to make.  I believe that we are presented with choices every day, the option to do this or that, perhaps even right or wrong, and when to it comes to matters that directly affect only your own life, (or matters such as abortion that are a direct correlation of your life,) you should have the option to do what you want.  You will be the one suffering the ultimate consequences – whether mental, physical, or otherwise – and there is no need to insist people follow any direct routes.  This obviously doesn’t apply to certain things such as rape or murder, but instances of abortion, (not quite murder,) drug use, or gay relations are all matters of choice that seem to fit my theory quite nicely. 

And when it comes to this topic of gay marriage, I don’t understand the outcry.  With abortion or even drugs, there are larger forces at work.  The idea of a mother killing a potential human being is, in my eyes, a matter of perspective.  With drugs, there are underlying factors of gang violence and even circumstances that arise from long-term use, (ailing children, violence, and so on.)  But aside from the fact that God seems to wag his finger at the idea of sexual plugs that don’t seem to fit, there really is no major argument to suggest that homosexuality is a threat.  “It’s a threat to the American family!”  Why?  Has your husband been waiting to ditch you and the kids for his accountant Rico? 

Unless, of course, God will smite our entire globe for the allowance of gay marriage – (as opposed to PRACTICE of homosexuality, which has been practiced since the beginning of time,) leaving us a post-apocalyptic world of ash and stone all for the sake of a few incorrectly bumped uglies.  Shame on you gay America – your selfish practices have cost us all. 

Speaking of costs, you’d think that there could be some practical economic argument to make over the idea of gay marriage.  Something that Mitch McConnell or the Evangelical movement could really sink their teeth into.  “The gays are costing us millions!”  But economists are suggesting that the allowance of gay marriage, in just the handful of states that have overturned bans, could generate a new $32 Billion in wedding related fees alone.  That’s a lot of cash, friends, and a lot of cash that looks pretty enticing in the middle of an economic crisis such as ours.  But when I suggested this to my right-wing road-sign changing cohort at the Roads Department, he told me he would rather pay, “triple the taxes” than to allow the homosexuals to receive some kind of governmental recognition.  Go figure.

I guess I just don’t understand the basis for all the hooplah.  There is very little evidence to suggest that homosexual marriage will effect the typical Nascar fan at all, unless they themselves decide to hitch with a fellow dangler.  (I hear Jeff Gordon is single.)  The only argument I’ve heard involves the dangers to the existence of the American family, but as Jon Stewart suggested on a show earlier this week, is the real danger the idea that dudes can just hook up now, for legal purposes, and no longer have to deal with nagging wives or menstruation cycles ever again?  Or perhaps a whole collective of “Chuck and Larry’s” just looking to milk the system?  Is this really a consideration?

And to bring it back to a political standpoint, (which is always the best way to approach such matters,) it seems like a strange philosophical stand for the Republican Party.  Putting the influence of the religious Right aside, (and the fact that most homosexual scandals, with the exception of Barney Frank, tend to come from the GOP’s side of the aisle,) the idea of gay marriage seems to fit in with a distinct part of their message: less government.  But this would include privacy, which doesn’t apply to the Republican Party at all, considering the topic of abortion as well.  (Abortion is a privacy issue, not one of life.)  And even the Libertarians, (Ron Paul from the past,) seem to shy away from supporting such a measure, which agreeing that the War on Drugs is lost and that Americans need to be left alone.  Hell, even the Democrats shy away from the issue.  Obama does not support gay marriage specifically, in an elaborate plot to keep with mainstream America on issues that will never cross his desk.  I told you he was smart.

But the message I present remains simple: So you don’t agree with gay marriage?  Then don’t do it.  Don’t agree with drug use?  More power to you.  Abortion isn’t your style?  Enjoy your little booger eaters.  Is it really enough to justify killing an abortion doctor?  Or to drag a teenage kid 5 miles down a gravel road behind an old Chevy truck?  I don’t tend to think so, but I’ve been known to be wrong.  I have the great belief that God’s greatest creation, should there be an Almighty in the skies above us, is the amazing idea of free will.  When asked the meaning of life, most devout Christians will say the answer is to serve and praise God above.  And my only complaint about such logic is if God is so concerned with adoration, then why were we given the option to go astray?  If the Lord never wanted abortions to be done, then why isn’t the womb an impenetrable steel trap?  And why did he give us so many damn holes to stick things in?  It almost seems like some sick kind of encouragement that, to be honest, I want nothing to do with. 

Perhaps it’s all a trap.

But I wanted to take a shot at my own little perception of the argument over gay marriage, having seen efforts from other well meaning writers.  I suppose there’s no right or wrong, and as my mother said to me earlier this morning, “morality comes from conscience.”  It’s just another matter of perceptive free will.  The idea of morals is a topic for another day, but the taste should serve this piece quite well – who is to say what is right?  God it often seems, but he also sends mixed messages.  “Peace and love, blah blah blah – DAMNATION.”  It’s confusing for a young thinker such as myself.  So my answer, as always, is simple: Do what you want to do.  Think what you want to think.  And challenge the system if necessary.  Drugs, babies, and sexual agendas all fall into my realm of moral ambiguity, so follow your heart, little dreamers.  And who knows – you might get it right.

Nigger

Posted in Political, Uncategorized on May 23, 2009 by redbearbluebear

It may be hard to believe that someone as far to the left of the political compass as I am, (and as outspoken as possible,) would surround themselves with people that disagree wholeheartedly with almost everything I appreciate about the American way.  Homosexual rights, the female agenda, gun control, social services, and abortion are all topics that have been brought up in too many smoky garages, and around too many half-drunken bonfires.  Here in Burlington, my friends look for as many subjects to challenge me on as possible, knowing all too well that I can never shy away from an argument.  But the number one debate that I have been having over the past few months is one that I feel extremely passionate about, but will never be able to win amongst my associates here in town.  Can we move past the use of the word “nigger”?

It’s not that I’m uncomfortable around the word, especially after having heard it for close to 6 years now with the maturation of camo-clad bigotry.  I have no fear of being associated with hate-mongers and ending up with a baseball bat to the knee caps.  This is the kind of racist fear that is as damaging to the credibility of black America as any chew-slathered comment.  And my argument against the use of the term “nigger” is as simple as I could possibly make it – void of all references to differences in social upbringing or urbanity – and instead focusing on simple logic.  Allow me to give you a taste:

First we have to get past the frequent argument that “black people call each other niggers,” because it really doesn’t apply to the situation at hand.  If you had any sense, you would understand that it is a matter of desensitizing the word – taking away the hateful context and defeating it by creating a term of solidarity.  It, in essence, attempts to take away some of the punch of the word, and to suggest anything else would be stupid.  As an argument that this justifies white people calling black people niggers, it certainly falls flat on its face.  But so many of my neo-Nazi friends’ arguments do.

There has to be a consideration for the word itself.  It is unparalleled in weightiness of insult.  For a white person to call a black person a nigger is to take them back in time and insult generation after generation of African descendants.  It was a word created specifically for hateful intent, and this connotation will remain as such.  No other word in our language is such a direct rocket of hatred. 

So when the argument comes up, (as it usually does,) that there are two kinds of black people, “decent black people,” and “niggers,” I usually begin to sweat with anticipation for a verbal knockout.  We can easily split black people up into categories of people we admire as fellow citizens, and those of which we despise for their flaws, but we can easily do the same for whites.  There are white people that I enjoy and appreciate, and there are white people that deserve their share of criticism.  This applies to people of every race.  But the difference is that we have no word to apply to white people, (“crackers,” “wankstas,” “wiggers,” dumbasses,” etc.) that could ever compare to the term nigger.  There is not one.  For every “nigger” that is selling drugs, doing drugs, enacting violence, or committing crime, there is a white person that is doing the same, yet only one is the “nigger.”  The white guy is a “dumbass.”  They don’t even out.  And they never will.

There’s simply no reason to target the black population in this way, (and I know I am preaching to the choir.)  Now, I have come to terms that I have many, many racist friends – they have the right to believe anything they want, and call people nearly everything they want – but I in turn have the right to argue them down to exhaustion.  Furthermore, this usually works, with most people eventually just agreeing not to use the word in front of me, and to think before they speak.  But this isn’t what I’m fighting for.

I have been fortunate enough to be able to plead the First Amendment several times in my life.  My article a few years back about Randy Winegard’s unfortunate condition of penis envy gained me a few new readers, but no friends among community leaders.  (I lost a website for the stunt, but will stick by my original claim.)  We have this Amendment to protect the viewpoints of all citizens, whether they be through print, religion, or otherwise, with only minimal exception.  But I often wonder, where is it inside the human mind that allows for decency to be thrown out the window in exchange for capability.  You are legally capable of calling someone a nigger, but what possible explanation can be given as to why you would want to do so?  It’s the most loaded of words.  It’s the nuclear bomb of racial remarks.  So many are lucky to be in the sole environment of fellow bigots, or worse yet, friends that are too kind and quiet to challenge such behavior.  I have never been considered kind or quiet, and have no problem making a scene.  Eventually, the scene is going to be made in a place where the odds are not so favorable, and the consequences may be grim.

I make the simple request to treat people with similar respect, if possible.  When a friend makes a mistake, we call him a moron.  An idiot.  When a stranger does the same, he’s a dumbass – maybe worse.  But for some reason, when a black man acts in a way that we consider reprehensible, he becomes a nigger, and that just baffles me beyond belief.  There’s no way to kill it.  I certainly can’t do much more than fight my futile battles.  But for the love of God, (yes, the same God that so many of the right-wing foul-mouths claim to be their ever loving savior,) can we at least entertain the idea of equality for a while?  Maybe just for a moment, between slugs of Miller High Life, we could acknowledge the similarity of our shared flesh and blood, regardless of our color, and in spite of past concerns? 

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream.  As usual, I have more of a complaint.

Begging for Lies

Posted in Political, Uncategorized on May 13, 2009 by redbearbluebear

It has been only sixty years since the publication of George Orwell’s 1984 and the introduction of double-speak and telescreens to the vocabulary of the public.  But within this short amount of time, the media has evolved into a propaganda powerhouse that perhaps not even Orwell could have conceived.  There are twenty-four hour “news” stations, up to the minute coverage of every major event, and all of the convenient perks that go along with an internet connection.  For all of these resources, there is a public that is dying to consume as much content as possible, regardless of credibility or truth. And although every news outlet presents itself as factually accurate, media consumers are now using these same outlets to be propagandized, and the lines between factual journalism and punditry have been effectively blurred. 
           
There are currently three major networks that provide a national nightly newscast: NBC, CBS, and ABC, respectively.  PBS provides a nightly broadcast, but enjoys nowhere near as many viewers as the other networks.  Each of these stations claims to provide a fair and factual account of the day’s news stories, and for the most part, this can be seen as true.  The anchors provide the majority of the details, while reporters and eye-witnesses collect further evidence for support.  There are no pundits, nor analysts, and the journalists rarely make any comments toward the news.  Only in extreme circumstances, such as Brian William’s recent on-air disgust with an Air Force One photo-op gone wrong, will a journalist break from their traditional role to comment on any report.  This is what is expected of the major network broadcasts, and in comparison to other media outlets, such as cable news or talk radio, the complaints of bias are far less prevalent.
      
      But with the help of the internet, these same journalists are able to shed their reputations as news professionals and participate in the frenzy that is web-logging, or “blogging.”  NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams updates his blog, the “Daily Nightly,” after every broadcast, including opinions and criticisms of the same stories presented earlier in the evening.  More importantly, these blogs are usually part of the network’s website, and are often advertised in the nightly broadcast.  This ties the traditional presentation of news to the personal opinions of the journalist while eliminating the professional courtesy of pure fact.  Established and respected journalists such as Jack Cafferty , now of CNN, have been asked to turn their attention to the web to not only reach an even larger demographic, but to allow a more intimate channel for the news.  Viewers and readers alike are asked to comment on news stories, and these same comments are often used on air to gauge passion between two sides of an argument.  The blogger responses to the news become as large a part of the story as the news itself, creating an entire ocean of possible pundits through the advancements of the internet.  These opinions are now integral parts of the news. 
         
   Consequently, with thousands of viewers later logging on to view journalists’ blogs, the opinions of an anchor can help to solidify his station’s ratings, or ultimately damage credibility.  This is nowhere more apparent than in the realm of cable news.  Each of the three major cable news channels, CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC, cling to slogans such as “The Most Trusted Name in News,” “Fair and Balanced,” and “The Place for Politics,” while offering more commentary than news reporting.  Deceptively, hosts like Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs all present an account of the day’s events, but litter their broadcasts with opinion based reporting, punditry, and spin.  Each of these stations has developed a reputation based on their broadcast personalities, with FOX News being widely considered the most conservative, and MSNBC the most liberal.  Furthermore, the stations do very little to argue against these political constraints.  The reason for this is simple: people tune in exclusively to hear their side of the argument in full swing, effectively offering themselves up for propaganda, and contributing to huge ratings in the process. 
          
  With this in mind, each of these networks has created a business model based on their targeted demographic, pumping out partisan propaganda over an entire twenty-four hour span.  According to a recent L.A. Times article, FOX News has led the ratings war for the past seven years, “delivering an average prime-time viewership of 2.1 million” in 2008.  Michael Wolff, author of the book Rupert Murdoch: The Man Who Owns the News, has spent a great deal of time with Murdoch, owner of FOX News, and claims that the biases and tilts that are often associated with the station’s reporting are not a matter of political preference, but are purely based in business.  “If [Murdoch] felt there were any money in far-left reporting,” Wolff wrote, “he would gladly do it.”  With MSNBC and CNN being labeled as liberally slanted and center-left networks, FOX News has monopolized the conservative viewpoint, and consequently reaps the rewards.  It should be noted, according to reports by the L.A. Times and the Nielson Ratings for television, all three of these cable networks saw over 40% increases in viewership in 2008, while only NBC gained viewers among the major network nightly broadcasts.  This could suggest an even more dramatic shift toward commentary-based broadcasts and further highlights the viewers’ desire for propaganda. 
           
To complicate things even further, many of the commentators double as reliable journalists and experts.  Tom Brokaw, the former NBC Nightly News anchor and frequent moderator for Meet the Press, has recently opened himself up as a commentator and pundit, most notably for MSNBC.  He’s even begun writing op-ed pieces for the New York Times.  His most recent article is a scathing criticism of what he calls “small town big spending,” which details his complaints over the economic practices of states like South Dakota and Iowa.   During his tenure as a news anchor, he rarely allowed his opinions to leak, but now in semi-retirement, he has made a comeback through punditry.  For viewers familiar with Brokaw, this could easily blur the line between journalism and subjective analysis.  Furthermore, guests are brought onto cable news programs and labeled “experts” or “journalists,” then proceed to share a slanted mixture of thoughts and fact, most often never differentiating between the two.  To a viewer that is relying on journalism to provide them accurate reporting, these guests’ arguments can easily be misconstrued as completely factual.  Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation, actually claims that the blog revolution has kept windy pundits in check, citing that bloggers “fact-check statements and compare them with previous utterances.” This might very well be true, but the fact remains that these statements are already being consumed, and many will escape the pursuers of veracity. It can easily become a vicious cycle of one-sided debate that can unfortunately muddy the waters of truth. 
          
  This is seen most interestingly through a study done by the Pew Research Study in 2007, which tested the political knowledge of news consuming participants.  Pew claims that despite the fact that “today’s citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago,” not all sources are equal in effectiveness.  Among national broadcasts, FOX News viewers actually recorded the worst scores in the study, and viewers of network nightly news broadcasts did even poorer than CNN viewers.  And to add the icing to the cake, viewers of Comedy Central’s Daily Show and Colbert Report, shows based on the mockery of the news, recorded the highest scores of all participants.  Understandably, newspaper website and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer viewers also ranked near the top of the list, neither exhibiting any major concerns for bias.  But what these results show, above all else, is that a steady diet of one-sided rhetoric may not be the best way to remain educated in news-related matters.  In fact, it may be the best way to lose sight of the truth.
          
  But for all the flack that journalism receives for its perceived biases and spin, most would agree that the good outweighs the bad. It was our third President, Thomas Jefferson, who famously said, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to choose the latter.”   Newspaper journalism, sadly the least profitable method of news media, still remains a well respected force in the presentation of fact, and most networks do indeed have entire blocks dedicated purely to news reporting.  But with the invention of the internet, and the advancement of technology, the opportunities for media propaganda and spin have become greater than ever, with even less scrutiny.  And perhaps most frighteningly, new methods of media propaganda have been able to bypass the watchdog of journalism entirely, while still providing the partisan rhetoric that much of the public desires. 
           
This is seen most strikingly in New York Times columnist Virginia Heffernan’s article “The YouTube Presidency.”  The Obama Administration, widely considered the most high-tech administration in our nation’s history, “maintains an entire staff devoted to new media.”  Part of this staff’s responsibilities include continuous updates of the Barack Obama YouTube channel, which not only supplies clips from Obama press events, but also weekly speeches from the President himself, created solely for YouTube purposes.  These speeches are full of the same rhetoric and promises that most politicians are known to spread, but what makes this considerably different is that journalists have virtually no say in the presentations when all is said and done.  Obama is able to communicate directly to millions of his subscribers who willingly follow his channel and swallow the propaganda.  As Heffernan notes in her article, it is “unsettling” to realize that political reporters can’t keep up with the steady output from the Obama team, and that millions of American citizens are attracted to the unfiltered content.  This material escapes all fact-checks and analysis, and goes directly to the viewers that want it.  It’s the most direct form of propaganda available, and with the number of subscribers going up each day, it’s scarily effective. 
           
One must accept that propaganda is always presented with business in mind, whether it be financially or even governmentally.  But the worst part of this current struggle with propaganda is easily the loss of truth in a technological age that should enhance our ability to find it.  Instead, most media consumers are simply that: consumers, and not thinkers that are able to cut through spin and bias to find the core to every story, and the facts within every report.  And although we should be able to confidently trust our nation’s journalists, the lines between journalists and pundits have become less clear than ever, and people are still too willing to accept what is given to them, without any consideration for further research.  These consumers prefer to hear viewpoints and opinion that mirror their own, as opposed to the truth and the consequences that result from it.  With every partisan blowhard claiming to be a newsman, and with every report being sprinkled with falsities, the media is taking advantage of our entire culture, and no one seems to mind.

Iowa: Land of the Free, Home of the Gay

Posted in Political, Uncategorized on April 5, 2009 by redbearbluebear

Hopefully, you all catch enough of the news to have heard yesterday’s lead story: The Iowa Supreme Court repealed the ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional.  Facebook and Twitter blew up with elated responses to the news, and for once, Iowa was seen as a state worthy of recognition.  Comments about the Hawkeye state ranged from surprised to proud, and everything in between, and for the first time in a while, I was quick to mention that I’m an Iowan.

Regardless of how you feel about the story, (and my guess is that most of you, like me, are more than satisfied,) Iowa has suddenly gained some respect from the elitists of the nation.  Unfortunately, internet applications like Twitter are fairly homogenous in nature, so the overwhelming response of joy is probably a bit distorted, in reality.  It took a while for quips of disgust to start popping up on my newsfeeds, mostly from staunch conservatives and considerably religious individuals, and they are, of course, entitled to their opinion.  The beer-guzzling bigots that I went to high school with managed to go unheard from throughout the day.  My guess?  They haven’t yet found the wonders of the Internet, or furthermore, couldn’t care less.

But my point today is not to create a divide among believers and non-believers, and who, in actuality, are believers or non-believers.  My point is to shine a tiny bit of light on the state I am often so hesitant to reveal as my home.  A state that has been the butt end of too many redneck jokes, too many primitive one-liners, and too many zingers about farms and/or corn.  So allow me to refresh the nation’s memory of our importance.

The state of Iowa gave birth to one president and one vice-president, Herbert Hoover and Henry Wallace, respectively, both of which, despite the enormous honors of their offices, managed to be epic failures.  Hoover was at the helm during the great depression, while Wallace managed to swindle away his opportunity to become president with the death of FDR by becoming an unstoppable egomaniac.  Regardless, their spots in history are solidly engraved. Iowa has also solidified itself as one of the most important political states, despite it’s lack of size, through the Iowa Caucuses, which I remind you all helped to begin the historic campaign of President Barack Obama, among others. 4 Nobel laureates have also come from Iowa, and I bet none of you knew that.

Furthermore, a number of importance actors and actresses have come from our great state, including John Wayne, Laura Flynn Boyle, Elijah Wood, Johnny Carson, Cloris Leachman, Kate Mulgrew, and Ashton Kutcher.  Some of them I am prouder to mention than others, but all have had their share of success.  But with all of these names aside, Iowa is much more than a birthplace.  In a recent article by U.S. News and World Reports, Iowa was ranked as the second most desirable state to live in, behind only New Hampshire, based on job opportunity, home value, crime rates, etc. 

I remember attending a conference in Washington D.C. when I was younger where students from across the country came together to learn more about our capitol.  Though many of the historical facts have long been forgotten, the conversations I had with the people there have not.  Among the notable questions asked were whether Iowa has cable television, airports, or internet.  I was asked by nearly everyone whether I lived on a farm, and I received sighs of disappointment when I said that I did not.  Some of these questions came from adults, mainly from the east or west coast, who had never traveled through our state, and never plan to.  Interestingly, where Iowans tend to make fun of the deep south and even Missouri for being backwards and left behind, the rest of the nation seems to think Iowa is in the same ballpark. 

Iowa is the education state, dear friends and comrades.  Aside from fact that we manufacture the majority of the nation’s standardized tests, (the ACT, ITEDS, and ITBS,) we also consistently remain as one of the best scoring states in all forms of testing.  Though rarely seen as progressive, Iowa has never been overwhelmingly Democratic, nor overwhelmingly Republican, and our concerning issues reflect this.  We are a farming state, the most important of all them, and we keep up on the nation’s farm bills.  We are also an industrial state, and keep focus on labor reform and union activity.  We do have a city, contrary to popular belief, with over 500,000 residents, and despite our lack of notable color, our state is becoming increasingly diverse.

The reversal on the gay marriage ban is just one more thing to note about the “Food Capital of the World,” a name I had never heard our state referred to before researching the decision recently.  But regardless of how you feel about it, Iowans should take pride in the fact that our state has once again become a center point of attention, which may not only increase revenue, but also respect.  And personally, I’d like to see us be a role model for the rest of the Midwest.

Alex Denison.

Daniel Craig on a Park Bench; Your Neighbor in the Box

Posted in Political on April 3, 2009 by redbearbluebear

I mean, I don’t think I’m alone when I look at the homeless person or the bum or the psychotic or the drunk or the drug addict or the criminal and see their baby pictures in my mind’s eye. You don’t think they were cute like every other baby? 
-Dustin Hoffman

Today’s New York Times had a wonderful theme that never gets the attention it deserves, even in the current economic climate.   Nearly every section, from Arts to Weekends, had some kind of piece on homelessness.  The front page featured a tragic story about a stabbing at a library, where two homeless men were fighting for prime squatting territory for the evening.  Another section had a wonderful piece about a former cop that had lived on the streets for nearly twenty years before falling in love and moving into a jail-cell of a basement in New York City. Sadly, he often wakes up longing for the openness of his sidewalk.  Yet another fine article featured interviews from several elderly people reminiscing about their childhood homes, and how much they missed those times.  What began as a frustrating scramble to find the crossword puzzle turned out to be much more important, although I never did find that puzzle. 

I visited the University of Wisconsin last year, and aside from the amazing campus that I frequently regret abandoning, I remember a newspaper I picked up in a sandwich shop in town.  The lead story was about the mayor of the nude beach in Madison, an honorary title, who could no longer lodge in his van for the winters because his heating had stopped working.  Please, ignore your basic instincts that suggest a nude beach in Wisconsin is an impossible dream.  Dreams are what you make of them. Anyway, his plan was to get to Florida before the first frost came, but his funds were insufficient.  He was a lawyer who gave up on the world, left home with just one suit and an Italian pair of shoes, and started a new life on his own terms.  The article left a P.O. Box address at the end.  I sent him a few dollars in the mail.

You might be surprised to know how many famous folks the streets have coughed up in their time. Nine Grammy Award Winners, eight Emmy Award Winners, six Oscar Winners, and one Nobel Prize Laureate are among the notable individuals who once survived without permanent residence.  Drew Carey, David Letterman, and Martin Sheen spent the early part of their careers living out of cars.  Jim Carrey and Kelsey Grammar pitched tents.  Daniel Craig claims he called a London park bench home for some time as he waited for his big break. And hell, perhaps the South’s only shining, guiltless icon, Colonel Sanders, shared a car with his wife as he tried to pitch his recipe across these fine United States. 

Some may even be able to attribute some of their success to street living.  Musicians such as Kurt Cobain, Jewel, and Woody Guthrie brought a raw and emotional quality to their art that must have had some influence from their days of sleeping in broken down trucks and railroad cars.  Furthermore, “artists” like Scott Stapp crawled their way up from the gutter, only to find them selves back in it later in life.  Some of us wish he’d stay there forever. 

I can’t claim to be an expert on the subject, although I have had my own experiences.  My bouts of homelessness were always fairly short rounds, and thankfully never due to financial folly.  Instead, my big mouth landed me in the back end of my rusty old Jeep Wrangler a time or two.  I preferred hiding in the backwoods of Henderson County with a pop-up tent and threadbare sleeping bag.  I’ve spent too much time  sprawled out, involuntarily, under the starry skies of both Iowa and Illinois, waiting for an angry phone call letting me come back home.  I spent over two weeks camped out at Gladstone Lake a summer ago, and although that time period pales in comparison to most homeless stints, I like to think that I experienced a hint of their pain.

Most homeless live in large cities, although thanks to recent home foreclosures, the suburban and rural numbers are on the rise.  This provides for some necessary financial opportunities in order to obtain food and drink.  One route, as described by a homeless man in the NYT, is to begin “canning” for change.  This involves collecting cans from garbage bins and sidewalks, and exchanging them for change in order to afford the basic necessities.  An average, devoted day to canning can get you around $20 in change.  The homeless man claimed a good day could put $100 in your pocket. 

I never had to deal with this, and most likely couldn’t considering the size of Burlington.  At five cents a can, you have to collect 400 to achieve the $20 plateau, an unrealistic goal in a community of less than 30,000 people. Luckily, and unlike most homeless, I had a debit card.  Unfortunately, I also lack any form of financial responsibility.  After realizing I would be on my own for a while, I often found myself at the local Walmart, filling a shopping cart with what I thought to be bargains.  $1 liter bottles of green tea, $1.50 packages of hot dogs, etc.  I’d somehow always find myself with an ample supply of Wheat Thins, which contrary to popular belief, are not a staple of the homeless community.  I’d spend more money in an hour than most homeless would spend in a month, yet always felt as though I had nothing to show for it.

Furthermore, most homeless survive without any formal sleeping shelter.  Cardboard boxes and newspaper blankets become suitable arrangements, instead, providing the most minimal of accommodations for rest.  I keep a sleeping bag in the back of my car, just in case, and in foreseeable cases of prolonged homelessness, I always managed to find a tent.  I’ve gone without both before, but would never recommend it, remembering the awful case of the shivers I had on the Crapo Park municipal stage, even in the summertime.  I’d often find myself doing jumping jacks in the middle of the night, thinking of those commercials John Edwards used to run about the freezing veterans on the streets of D.C.  To be honest, the sleeping bag is the finest tool for outdoor survival, though in times of rain and snow, you’ll spend more time fighting the ever encroaching dampness than sleeping.  But then again, I probably deserved it.

I had a job to maintain, and a messy one at that, coming back to my tent at night with pizza sauce slathered all over my clothes.  The next issue was always how to wash clothes, which I managed to do in Gladstone Lake, or at the local park bathroom.  It’s a truly unhappy activity that makes you appreciate the washers and dryers we so often take for granted.  But it was an activity that had to be done to maintain my lifestyle, something that most homeless do not bother with.  Survival becomes more important than appearance, something you may notice if you have ever encountered one yourself.  Though it should be noted that the stereotypical homeless are not the only ones that populate our streets at night.  Doctors, lawyers, and businessmen all have their own stories of homeless life, whether it be due to financial collapse or even student loans.  I worry about this from time to time as well, as my mother constantly reminds me of the increasing expenses of my college education.  I know others that are worse off than myself, and I fret for them as well.  I have dreams of drawing straws for a single sleeping bag in Boone County.  Sadly, I never win.

I used to call it “involuntary camping.”  I think the term still fits, especially in context to actual homelessness, which makes my story seem trivial in comparison.  But I remind you that I spent my fair share of winter nights curled into a ball by a lake with no cell phone to rely on, and a dry tank of gas in the Wrangler that I later determined ran on absolute will power.  I’d think about how I’d wished I had learned how to hunt as a boy, but always dismissed the idea due to liberal anxieties.  I always got back into town, I always managed to collect a paycheck, and eventually, I always made it home.

My mom speaks fondly of my grandpa Harrison, a man I never met.  She claims he was an expert survivalist who fed his entire family on homegrown vegetables and wild game.  She remembers having rabbit stew and cooked squirrel, and my mind always wanders to Delmar in the Mississippi backwoods: “Would you like some gopher, Everett?”  I envy that life in ways, but realize I could never do it.  But that was a man that could live on his own without trouble, and perhaps, with pleasure.  They are rarities today.  Perhaps a better word is “treasures.”

The idea of a L.A. dumpster is equally as unfathomable.  Scrounging through garbage for left over scraps and praying for one more night of survival.  A guest from an old Jerry Springer episode always springs to mind, who claimed that he lived behind an apartment complex in Hollywood and was reduced to eating out of diapers.  Whether for dramatization or not, that thought will probably never leave me. Furthermore, there is a constant threat of violence that is seen so often with the homeless. Several years ago, a homeless man out West was lying on a sidewalk in front of a department store, when he was assaulted and killed by a group of teenagers with baseball bats.  The entire incident was captured on surveillance camera.  As far as I know, the assailants were never apprehended. 

I would argue that it was a case that lacked sentimental interest. Despite the media coverage, there was no face associated with the victim, aside from the disgusting bearded mug that was smashed by a Louisville slugger.  The overwhelming majority of crime cases that are broadcast by the mass media involve an attractive white female, a point that has been brought up time and time again, but to no avail.  The homeless, however, suffer from a public perception that is much lower than the average citizen, even the poor average citizen.  They are below the rest of society, or at least portrayed that way.  Their requests for change are often met with jeers and constant suggestions that they “should get a job”.  Admittedly, I’ve thought this myself.  One must consider, however, how difficult it would be to get a job dressed in rags and Kleenex box shoes.  It’s not a pleasant thought, but a realistic one. 

Perhaps even more unpleasant to consider is the idea of the homeless dead that are rounded up every morning in metropolitan cities.  Most go unclaimed by families, and as the Times article mentioned, spend weeks to months in morgues waiting to be laid to rest.  Eventually, after all hope has been lost for the contact of a friend of family member, they are given a careless burial, which might be the saddest funeral of them all.  The tomb of the unknown soldier receives glory that many fellow servicemen do not, dropped into the earth without sorrow or fuss.  It’s a hard reality for me to swallow, especially having just seen Charlie Kaufman’s Synedoche, New York, where the idea of each person’s individual story, individual play, is so powerfully displayed.  I can only imagine many of their stories are worthy of presentation.

Furthermore, the homeless are often made into villains in a society that is so focused on material wealth and gain.  Many question whether they were just the weak in a society that boasts “only the strong survive.”  I’d rather not speculate about such things.  Many homeless claim that they made the choice to live on the streets, opting to abandon their place in modern society, such as Madison’s nude beach mayor.  They often have wives.  They often have children.  So it is easy to visualize such scenarios as despicable, but so many scenarios are.  Others have fallen and just can’t get up.  Their stories are equally as tragic. 

The idea of the lovable tramp has virtually vanished from public memory.  I used to think being a vagabond would be somewhat adventurous, and I remember tumbling down Current River in Missouri with some friends, calling our selves the “floating hobos”.  Even spending those weeks in the tent seemed like a notable accomplishment that someone could appreciate, which I am further begging for here.  But televisions used to be full of hobos and tramps, made popular by Red Skelton.  This idea has faded, with David Koechner’s character of “T-Bone” being the only modern drifter of record.  And to be honest, what a lovable drifter he is.

The homeless of the big cities are rarely mentioned, and often swept under the rug.  Rudy Giulliani based much of his New York City mayoral campaign on ridding the streets of the homeless window washers.  By all accounts, he did a good job of it.  But where did the homeless go?  I don’t know, and no one seems to be telling.  Washington D.C. has one of the highest homeless populations in the country, and even as they lie on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, the issue is rarely addressed.  I cannot think of a rougher life than a big city vagrant, living off the concrete of an unforgiving metropolis. 

My stints of temporary homelessness, hopefully, seem nothing more than silly.  A spoiled suburbanite white kid living out of his car for a few nights in winter, or pitching a tent on a riverbed for a short while.  But I mention them for a bit of context: how many of you have even done that?  How many of you have even spent a week without a guaranteed source of cash, or a promised meal when you need it?  I venture to guess that few are raising their hands.  Even I have felt that much, in the most juvenile of terms, but I acknowledge the ridiculousness of my claims.  My life was never in danger.  My future was never in peril.  My home was never merely a fantasy. 

And so I bring this entire point forward as a small bit of protest for the voiceless.  Lord knows I have enough voice to share it.  And hopefully, you enjoyed the consideration.  

We have come dangerously close to accepting the homeless situation as a problem that we just can’t solve. - Linda Lingle

Consider it.

Alexander Denison, PhD. 

Lord, I Apologize To the Starving Pygmies Down There in New Guinea…

Posted in Political on March 11, 2009 by redbearbluebear

 

Fair and Balanced.  Crude and Ridiculous.

Fair and Balanced. Crude and Ridiculous.

I try not to write things that pertain directly to my major.  I know that not everyone in the world, (as a matter of fact, probably no one in the world,) wants to hear me rant and rave about the media and journalistic integrity, politics and their immediate impact.  I understand, comrades.  And I sympathize, I do, because there is nothing I would want to hear less about than your tales of the business world, or your anecdotes about the scientific principles of wrinkles.  It’s beyond me, you know.

But I was sitting in our journalism library yesterday, waiting for a friend so we would embark on the magical journey that is Panera Bread, when an image struck me not only as peculiar, but dare I say infuriating.  Mizzou is fairly tight with NBC, being an affiliate, so I naturally expect to see NBC Nightly News, or even MSNBC slathered across all of the televisions in sight.  Today they are playing CNN, which again is fine, as a fairly respectable journalistic output.  Yesterday?  Fox News.  But that isn’t my big complaint, because say what you will about Fox, every station parades their pundits on and off screen, saying ridiculous things for ratings.  But my concern was based in this:

Glenn Beck.  Was interviewing. Jeff Foxworthy.  About the economy. 

Read that a couple of times friends.  The periods are placed directly where you should pause for a breath, to consider whether this life is worth living anymore, or whether you should place a bullet between your eyes and go out in a final flash of integrity.  Those thoughts crossed my mind, comrades, but luckily for you, I decided I have worthwhile skills that need to be shared with the public.  You, on the other hand, could have a weighty decision on your hands.

Foxworthy is not a moron, and as a matter of fact, I enjoy him.  He’s a marketing genius, if nothing else.  I do tend to despise the Blue Collar boys and their absolute takeover of middle-class comedy.  But I sat through the interview and actually felt like I might make it through the rest of the day without a considerable breakdown.  But Fox News wouldn’t allow me to sleep well at night, oh no, not with the disgusting liberal thoughts of liberty and good-will pulsating through my skull.  The commercial break came, and I was hit with the following:

“9 O’Clock Eastern, Sean Hannity interviews Larry the Cable Guy.”

I did NOT insert periods into that sentence, because I know you, like me, deserve to get through such a hideous announcement in the least amount of time possible.  The vomit building in my esophagus was almost too potent to control, and luckily my ride came to save me from myself. 

Needless to say comrades, I did not catch the exclusive interview…

-Alex Denison

P.S. DON’T MISS COMEDY CENTRAL’S NEWEST ROAST: LARRY THE CABLE GUY, WHERE HE IS LAMPOONED BY A BUNCH OF NO NAME COMEDIANS, GARY BUSEY, AND THE REST OF THE BLUE COLLAR GANG.  “IT’S GUNNA BE FUNNIER THAN A PACK OF MIDGETS TRYING TO WRESTLE MY GRANDMA AFTER SHE DONE CLEANED OUT THE BAKED BEANS AT THE TURTLE COUNTY BUFFET, I’LL TELL YA WHAT.”

God help us all.