My Friends,
I have started a new blog on WordPress called Write-Errantry; a nod to that great literary knight-errant Don Quixote. I have already exported my previous posts there so please check it out using the link provided or by entering this URL:
http://andreguantanamo.wordpress.com/
Hmmm... How to end this blog on an inspirational but relevant note?
My Friends,
I have zero faith in the political process. I think it is an antiquated, obsolete and detrimental way to make decisions for society at best. At worst, and a little closer to reality, any politician who has any chance of getting elected has already been bought and paid for by various interests to finance their campaign.
One example of this fuckery, albeit a dated one
Or, if that's not the case, any sweeping fundamental change they would want to make, beyond the passage of new legislation, would probably get blocked or get them assassinated.
Bearing this in mind, its very easy to dissociate myself from all the noise. Even moreso when everything politicians say is typically flawed or constrained by present modes of thinking.
Enter the Boston Marathon Bombing. Not having a television means I get to miss most of the news coverage but some does creep into my facebook newsfeed. One such gem I noticed was that Stephen Harper was taking shots at Justin Trudeau for his comments regarding the bombing.
Trudeau's comments were:
“Now, we don’t know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue. But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?"
And Harper's criticism was:
“When you see this kind of action, when you see this kind of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes. You condemn it categorically and to the extent that you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible and that is what this government would do if it ever was faced with such actions.” Both quotations taken from the National Post.
Let's deal with Harper's buffoonery first. He takes the notion that thought should precede action and rips it apart. He wants action. ANY ACTION, so long as it vindicates the national honour. Forget preventing future violence, just condemn the perps (or whomever we have conveniently labelled the perps) and punish them harshly to satisfy the mob's biblical need for revenge.
I'm reminded of a line by rapper The Game in his song "120 Bars," where he references another rapper talking shit about him. Game says, "He don't write his own raps so I gotta forgive him." This is how I feel about Harper et al. These fucks don't actually write their speeches and they have PR teams to make sure that they portray a certain image so how am I really supposed to get mad at him for shit he didn't think up? Bearing this lack of accountability in mind, I have to approach Justin Bieber's Trudeau's comments with the same wariness but also the same magnanimity.
So obviously he didn't write his own comments. But given the circumstances that's kind of a drag because HE'S SAYING SHIT THAT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. If you read my blog with any regularity, you have probably read the words "root" and "cause" several times, as well as derivatives like "causality." For example, I use such terms extensively here, here, and here. So needless to say my spider-sense tingled when I read these comments from Trudeau. And here is where the danger lies; its easy to dismiss the "why plan when you can react" rantings of Harper for the idiocy inherent in those words, but when Trudeau comes at me with a message that makes sense, its tempting to forget that he is part of an establishment which actually cares little for root causality and fundamental, structural change. In fact, such change is anathema to the political establishment because the viability and necessity of the establishment itself would have to be questioned.
"People are not elected to political office to change things, they're put there to keep things the way they are." -Jacques Fresco
It's important to mention I have no problem with Trudeau personally (or Harper for that matter), but I recognize that they have to play a game where the main guideline is "say the right thing." But knowing that (and I think we all know that's what politics is on some level), the best course of action is not to accept the most appealing set of lies, but to reject an establishment predicated on lying altogether. I know this is hard; politics paints things as epic battles between "your side" (aka "the right side") and everyone else. You begin to see things as a fight for right and you put your support behind your champion/politician. It feels good when your champion gains traction because you feel a part of it. Conversely, when your champion loses you feel indignant, but righteously so. And motherfuckers love them some righteous indignation.
Furthermore, when one of these champions name-drops something which is of interest to me (i.e. causality) its tempting to focus my attention on their struggle for me and my interests. But politicians wear causes like pantsuits...
...and what was fashionable one day might not be fashionable the next. If something is empirically (objectively) right however, it is beyond public opinion and the tyranny of the 51%, a realm which the politician calls home. A politician may hit on the right note every once in a while but they only have as much integrity as public opinion allows them to have, otherwise they're out of a job. Or assassinated.
So as you struggle to be free always remember that people are gonna say things which at face value may seem amenable to you but always dig deeper, because there are a lot of diversions which will give you that feeling of doing right without actually doing any right. I am reminded of a part in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, when "looter," Hopton Stoddard approaches architect and protagonist Howard Roark to build a temple for him. Roark, not being religious, is initially reluctant but Stoddard has been briefed by antagonist Ellsworth Tooey on exactly what to say to Roark to get around his apprehensions. Through the use of words and words alone, Stoddard convinces Roark that they are actually on the same page and that Roark IS religious in his own way, leading Roark to relent and build the temple. This is how I feel about Trudeau's comments; they have been calculated to get around the defences of a growing number of critical thinkers disaffected with the political establishment. But like the words of Stoddard, they are just so much hot air.
My Friends,
Forgive me if this post is a little less than timely. Life happened and I never got around to it. In the past year (2012, for those reading this in a distant future) two movies came out whose similarities were made much of:
The Dark Knight Rises, and...
Skyfall.
I wish to jump on that bandwagon by doing my own comparison & contrast-ison.
Now before I continue I want to point out that I am writing this blind in the sense that I haven't searched out any other blogs, articles, or reviews which might be making a similar case, save for some of the initial reviews of Skyfall (those which gave me the idea for this post) that pointed out superficial similarities with DKR in regard to how dark they both were (Given that one of the films has "dark" in the title I think we can do much better than that). So you will have to forgive me if someone else has already written these exact same things elsewhere because I never bothered to look.
First Off...
What's Different About These Movies?
For starters, everyone in Skyfall seems to have an inexplicably British accent,
...well, most everyone...
...while just about everyone in DKR seems to speak 'Merican.
Except him.*
So yes, there are serious linguistic differences in the film.
That just about covers the differences.
On to the Similarities:
Compare & Contrast is a peculiar species of review which demands discretion, because any movie abstracted to a certain point is identical to any other movie abstracted similarly. Like I would have a hard time saying that Billy Madison ripped off The Land Before Time if I compared the plots of the two films. But if I abstracted both plots to their most essential details as follows,
Protagonist faces adversity
Protagonist struggles with adversity and meets new friends along the way
Protagonist overcomes adversity
you can see that Billy Madison is a direct rip-off of The Land Before Time which came out years earlier. So I will try not to be too abstract when comparing the similarities between SF and DKR, but ultimately its not an exact science.
On to the Similarities For Realzies This Time The Characters and Their Relationship to the Plot
It seems to me that almost every main character in DKR has a parallel in SF. Sometimes, one character from one movie has similarities to two or more characters from the other movie but still they function in largely the same capacity. Let's start with the easy one...
Bruce WayneBatman vs. James Bond
The obvious comparison. As protagonists, these two share a common arc involving a fall and a rise. In the case of DKR, the focus of the story is redemption. Bruce Wayne's struggle is a largely internal one and questions about how (physically) ready he is to don the cowl after a lengthy sabbatical are more or less put to rest when he straps some hi-tech brace to his leg and kicks down a brick wall.
Later, when he is physically bested by Bane in their first match, we get the impression it is not because of any physical flaw, but due to some mental block which he overcomes while watching Gotham tear itself apart as he recuperates in the prison Bane sends him to. As if to reinforce this point, Batman neatly, if not easily defeats Bane in fisticuffs in their next encounter.
In SF, Bond's "fall" comes early on and it is a literal fall from a bridge after Moneypenny accidentally shoots him when he is fighting some douche-fag on a train in Istanbul. He recovers from his apparent death pretty early on however, and unlike Bruce Wayne, he struggles more with the physical difficulties of getting back in the saddle than any emotional blocks or guilt. (*This actually seems to be a consistent distinction between the two films: the struggles and repercussions in DKR tend to be more emotional and mental, while the struggles in SF are of a more immediate physical kind). Still, we really only see Bond's physical difficulties in his training montage. When he goes back to active status he seems to fare pretty much the same as ever and the only give-away that he is struggling is when other characters allude to how old he is.
Oh yeah, James and Bruce are also both orphans
Bane vs. Raoul Silva
The two antagonists serve as dark mirrors to the protagonists in many ways. What's more importantly (sic.) is that in some ways you feel sympathy for these characters because both have been fucked over by The League of Shadows and MI6 respectively. Of the two, Bane is definitely the more sympathetic even though his crimes could be considered worse. Generating sympathy for a guy who wants to nuke a city of innocent civilians is an impressive feat to accomplish especially when his hulking, lumbering gorilla frame makes him seem a brute. But then we have the revelation from Talia that it was she who escaped the pit, not Bane. It was he in fact who protected her and facilitated her escape. During the telling of this story the camera pans to Bane and we see this:
2:00-2:20 (You may have to view it on youtbe to see the tears clearly)
He's not just a hulking lumbering gorilla, he's a hulking, lumbering gorilla with feels.
And if we didn't already feel bad enough for Bane at this point we then realize that he loves Talia but she at some point went and fucked Bruce Wayne. The fanboys of the internet found this particularly offensive and have pointed out this injustice in their memes:
Bane, a sympathetic character if ever there was one
While we don't ever feel the same level of pity for Silva we do find out that M handed him over to the Chinese where he was tortured and unsuccessfully tried to commit teh suicides a la cyanide. We start to think, "Wow, M is kind of a bitch and maybe, just maybe she deserved this guy coming after her and MI6." This potentially great conflict however is neutralized not long after it is introduced when M explains herself to Bond and justifies her actions for the greater good, explaining that Silva had become problematic in the field. "Oh, so basically he is/was not justified in the least? M is/was completely in the right and Silva is/was completely in the wrong? 'Cause that's how real life conflict actually works..." M's explanation seems good enough for Bond who doesn't question M's leadership or choices and does not even seem to realize that but for the grace of M herself, he could be the next agent given up to an enemy nation. Since a clear line between MI6's good and Silva's evil is drawn in the sand (and because he doesn't cry while telling his story) it is hard to feel sympathy for Silva even though he has so much potential to be an interesting character.
But this lack of sympathy is a double-edged sword because I also don't feel much disdain for Silva either. Remember a few lines back when I said it was impressive that the creators of DKR make you feel sympathy for Bane even though he was gonna nuke Gotham? Well, you would think that because Silva is ultimately less sympathetic that it would be easier to condemn him for his transgressions. Buuut, I have a really hard time caring about his victims or his targets. Let's review them, shall we:
James Bond: Not even a primary target, just a guy who got in the way. Also a sociopath whose chosen profession allows him to kill with impunity while he drapes himself with the flag and sings "God Save the Queen" to lull himself to sleep. I am supposed to care about this guy who works in the shadows to maintain the hegemony of an empire with a legacy of murder and oppression around the globe?
M: An ice queen and bureaucrat who tries to keep fear alive in her country to justify her inflated position and salary. Too dumb to realize that she should have turned over Silva to the Chinese with the caveat that they must kill him when done with him lest he come back for her and vengeance. I don't really care about this character.
MI6: Uses up the tax dollars of the average working Briton and doesn't divulge its secrets. Its existence is predicated upon the fear of external threats and xenophobia.
If you ask me, Silva should have used more explosives.
Severine: I cared so little for this character's death that I actually had to look up her name.
When it comes down to it, the only victim of Silva I feel bad for is the glass of 50-year old Macallan scotch he wastes when he shoots Severine.
Evidently, Bond feels the same way.
SILVA, YOU BASTARD!!
On the whole I would say that Bane is more menacing as well as more sympathetic, while Silva (although creepy as fuck) doesn't elicit a lot of hate or sympathy from me. That said, both fill their respective roles in their respective films well enough because DKR is, like I already stated more about internal struggles while SF is more about action and therefore needs a less complex villain. In fact, giving Silva any complexity at all is simply icing on the cake, so my criticisms of his lack of depth are given with an awareness that the same film series that produced Silva also produced Jaws.
This guy is a regular fucking Hamlet.
Catwoman/Selina Kyle vs. Miss Moneypenny
I find the greatest similarity between these two characters is not that they are both femme fatales, but the role they play in the fall of their respective protagonists. In the case of Selina Kyle, she led Bruce Wayne down to the underground base where Bane accidentally his spirit and his body (sic.). Moneypenny was a little more directly responsible for Bond's downfall, y'know having shot him and all. From a plot perspective I think Selina Kyle is more necessary to her film as it could have been any rookie field agent who shot Bond, or even a bad guy, but the fact that it was Moneypenny sets up a cool sexual tension and a grounds for flirting throughout the film. There is definitely a romantic tension between Bruce and Selina Kyle as well, but it is less grounded in physical attraction and more a result of mutual fascination.
Again, I have to point out here that this seems to be in line with the more internalized struggles in DKR versus the more physical ones in SF. In fact, the relationship between Bruce and Selina never strikes me as particularly sexual at all, which is interesting considering that their relationship at film's end seems perfectly natural and genuine. This is important because there was high potential for their courtship to be glazed over and their romance assumed to be a given simply because he is the hot male lead and she is the hot female lead. Also, Bruce fucks Miranda Tate after already being fascinated with and attracted to Selina. This is great because its how romance works in real life; you can have a crush on someone and still bone someone else. If Bruce had refused to bed Miranda cause he liked Selina and saw her as a fellow nightkin, it would have been unrealistic as hell. Especially since, from a strictly sexual perspective, the tension between Miranda and Bruce was much more tangible at that point in the film, so boning made sense. But carnal delights and sexual gratification have no place in a film about internal struggles and succumbing to temptation must be punished. Want proof? Look how their relationship ended:
By film's end both Selina and Moneypenny each have a retirement of sorts, with Selina (presumably) giving up crime and Moneypenny taking a desk job. In a way this is kind of disappointing because both "retirements" really only serve to facilitate their continued relationships with their respective protagonists: Selina has to give up crime because Batman wouldn't allow it (although in the comics, her bad girl streak is precisely what made her so alluring to Batman. I guess since he's no longer Batman by film's end, all bets are off.), and Moneypenny had to give up field work because Bond couldn't have another operative in the field always shooting at him and such. Plus he needs someone to flirt with/wave his penis at tauntingly when he returns to HQ to get briefed.
Robin John Blake vs. Gareth Mallory/Miss Moneypenny
I could probably abbreviate this criticism to be just between Robin and Mallory. I only include Moneypenny in the comparison because who these characters really are/what they are to become is revealed (cheekily) at the end of the film. That said, lets keep the comparison between Blake and Mallory.
Blake as a lowly beat cop seems to butt heads with Deputy Commissioner Foley because of his willingness to circumvent the chain of command and his sharp instincts. He saves Gordon's life (twice) and is instrumental in helping the resistance in Gotham after Bane takes over. Later, he throws his badge into the bay when he realizes that the structure of the police force cramps his "do what needs to be done" style. At movie's end he reveals himself to be Robin, finds the Batcave and presumably goes on to fight crime as Bruce Wayne's replacement.
Unlike Blake, Mallory starts off with some status, being the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. However, he still alludes more than once to his dickhead boss, the Prime Minister. He ends up saving M twice, first when he gets the Intelligence minister to lay off during the review hearing, and then again when Silva tries to shoot her. While he never abandons the establishment he is part of, he does show a willingness to flout the rules when he discovers Q unofficially assisting James in setting a trap for Silva. By film's end he reveals who he is to become, namely M's successor at MI6
Lucius Fox vs. Q
This one is a no-brainer, as every modern hero needs a gadget-guy (as well as a 1337 haX0r). Q's cheeky-as-fuck attitude and hipster fashion sensibilities are reminiscent of his older Gotham counterpart, but the similarities continue from there. Both characters prove to be instrumental to the bad guy's plan too, as Lucius' handscan lets Bane access the fusion reactor and Q's hacking allows Silva to escape from MI6's emergency HQ. After these respective fuck-ups though both turn their efforts toward stopping the bad guys, Lucius aiding the recently-returned Bruce Wayne when Gotham is under siege, and Q leaving a "trail of crumbs" for Silva to follow to Skyfall. At film's end both characters are still alive and while it is certain that Q will go on assisting Bond, we can only assume that Fox will help Blake when he eventually takes up the mantle of the Batman. Otherwise why would he have been running a diagnostic on The Bat's auto-pilot at film's end?
Commissioner Gordon vs. M
Both of these characters serve as quasi-parent figures in their respective film series. You will remember that scene in Batman Begins when Det. Gordon protectively puts his coat around a recently-orphaned Bruce Wayne to comfort him at a police station. Later on throughout the series, Bruce reports to Gordon as Batman, and while he doesn't strictly take orders from him, he works collaboratively with Gordon where possible.
Ditto for the relationship between M and Bond. As far as a parental dynamic, Silva spells it out during his first meeting with Bond when he says,
"Mommy was very bad,"
about M. And throughout the film James shows a steadfast, if rebellious devotion to M, which is in line with the parent-child dynamic. Everyone calls her 'Mum' for shitsakes!
The similarities between Gordon and M deepen though as both are plagued by past crimes. In Gordon's case it is guilt; the opening of the film almost sees him come clean about the circumstances regarding Harvey Dent's death. Later, when Bane outs him for lying about Dent, he tries to justify his actions to a disappointed John Blake.
M on the other hand is haunted by past indiscretions in a much more tangible way by former operative Silva.
I mentioned this distinction between the two films already; while the struggles in DKR are of a more emotional nature, the ones in SF are typically more in the form of direct physical threats with little emotional struggle. To be fair, M does show some regret about having to give Silva up but she views things in Machiavellian terms, acknowledging that it was a necessity of her position and for the greater good. Beyond this, she doesn't let her past keep her up at night.
There is one final similarity between Gordon and M which bears mention; both are explicitly referred to as relics of war-time who no longer belong in peace time In the case of Gordon, this happens in the party at the film's beginning when Foley is ambitiously plotting to become the next commissioner. In the case of M it is at her hearing when the intelligence minister is criticizing her paranoia about the threats in the world. It is sad that the paranoid types and symbols of war like Gordon and M are eventually vindicated by the events in their respective films, as it reinforces the message that constant paranoia and vigilance are how things should be and that we should be wary of peace of mind and a lack of fear. I don't know if the majority of viewers picked up on this sub-text but it kind of made me cringe. It didn't hamper my enjoyment of either movie too much because I realize that they are fictions, but we should really try and stay mindful that the good/evil duality is unrealistic and only works as a narrative tool.
Two notable omissions from this character comparison are Talia/Miranda Tate and Alfred Pennyworth from DKR. Although I mentioned Talia in passing I didn't feel she had a direct parallel in SF, instead sharing similarities with many of the characters in the Bond film at various points in her character's development. In the case of Alfred, his disappearance at the beginning of the 2nd act seemed peculiar to me because abandoning Bruce did not seem in line with his character. Certainly I could compare him to M in the way he chides/advises Bruce, or I could do a very complex reading and compare Alfred's abandonment of Bruce to M's abandonment of Silva, but ultimately SF was just more economical in its casting, so no matter who gets compared to whom, some DKR characters will not be paired up with anyone.
Miscellaneous Similarities
Having gone on at length about character similarities, and in the process, plot similarities as well, it is time to have a little more fun and point out the random similarities. While these are of a more superficial nature, it does make you pause and wonder if the creators were trading notes while developing their respective films.
Both films have a literal representation of their respective titles:
This is a dark knight 'rising'
This is James Bond 'skyfalling'
Both Batman and Bond mysteriously reappear to their "parent figures" after extended disappearances to explain their absence and ultimately get back to work.
Both antagonists have fucked-up faces:
Both protagonists demonstrate proficiency for walking on ice:
Both protagonists seem pretty magnanimous toward the chicks who betrayed or accidentally shot them.
In a bit of role reversal, Bane's troops take on the role of peace officers prior to the climactic battle, ordering the assembled GCPD to disperse. This role-reversal is reinforced by Dep. Com. Foley as he and the other freed cops advance on city hall toward film's end.
On a more superficial level, Silva and his men just dress like cops for their assault on M's hearing.
Both villains have plans which involve getting captured at some point.
I almost missed it but DKR has some minor homo-eroticism as well in the form of Bane caressing Daggett. This of course is nowhere near as pronounced as Silva and Bond flirting with each other in SF.
Well, that's all I got. Hopefully you didn't hate. If there is anything large I missed please feel free to point it out. If you haven't seen either or both of thse films go check them out as they are both well worth it.
Stay Thirsty,
-Andre Guantanamo
*I didn't put a joke about Bane's muffled voice here because the claims about how difficult he was to understand seemed mostly overblown to me, and even worse it became an easy joke which could be made without thinking. I try and keep the humour a little elevated here.
My Friends,
Since first I heard it, I have had trouble with the word "partner" when used to refer to a significant other.
However, my apprehensions about the word kinda just stayed in the back of my mind because not many people I knew used it. Yet for whatever reason (likely the crowd I have immersed myself in as of late), I am hearing it more and more often. So let's explore it.
Now first off, I get why someone would use it. At the most superficial level, it adds a veneer of maturity to a relationship:
Fig.1: A "girlfriend" and "boyfriend"
Fig. 2: Two "partners" doing exciting partner stuff
While young love may typically be more exciting, mature love bespeaks steadiness; a kind of slow burn which endures. And if there's one thing people in our society generally prefer, its security over excitement, hence the desire for a reliable, steady mate (even if in name only).
But like I said, this is just a superficial aspect of the word. On a more substantial level, I think the term partner gained traction sometime in the last twenty years as same-sex relationships became more normalized. During that transition, loaded words like girlfriend and boyfriend which presuppose a significant other of the opposite sex, naturally became problematic. I don't even need to go into the complications implied by same-sex marriage ("I now pronounce you man and husband"). God forbid! :-P In a show of solidarity with their gay/lesBros, straight people have adopted the term to be a more politically correct, gender-neutral way of saying who they're boning. Kind of like women calling themselves Ms.
*As an aside, a gay male friend of mine matter-of-factly referred to his "boyfriend" the other night which was refreshing, although admittedly it caught me off guard.
Unless there is some egregious oversight on my part (wouldn't be the first time) I think I have covered all two (2) reasons why someone would refer to their romantic relationship as a partnership.*
So how do I feel about it? Not too bad I suppose. Certainly I am no fan of labels,
so "partner," being a little less specific than bf or gf works a little better for me, although it is a label nonetheless. And that is really the problem; if you're going to label someone with a term based on their relationship to you, why half-ass it? In my eyes its better to go all the way. For me personally, I enjoy calling my partner "woman" (If used as a formal address, it's "Woman" with a capital W). I never thought too much of this until I sat down to write this sentence you are reading right now, but in its own way, the term "Woman," when used as an address, is an indictment of labels in general by taking our obsession with categorization to its absurd extreme. Its certainly a greater statement against gender categorization than a contrived term like "partner."
So for all you people out there who use "partner" (a word completely devoid of any emotive or descriptive power) when referring to that special someone in your life, ask yourself why you use it. If its to escape the tyranny of loaded words and labels like "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" consider using more crude terms like "my man/woman" (or if those are a little too plain for you, try funstick or ovary-box) to illustrate just how absurd defining people based on relationships actually is.
Stay Thirsty,
-Andre Guantanamo
*Going back to my first image pulled from the movie film, American Beauty, I do take issue with commercial connotations of the word "partner." One of my problems with marriage for example, as alluded to in an earlier post, is that as well as being a religious union, it is also a legal/financial one. I don't think people bear this in mind when they use the word partner, especially when they are simply dating and not married, but I feel we must be very particular about the words we use. For example:,
From "The Law Dictionary" app
I don't think people are aware of just what they mean on a legal level when they use the word partner. It is a legal/commercial term and all statutes/regulations/codes are applicable only to commercial/legal entities such as persons. corporations, and partnerships. Heads up, nigga!
My Friends,
An earlier post from today detailed one part of my adventures from yesterday regarding the aftermath of a traffic collision. This post could be considered its direct sequel, or perhaps a spiritual successor in that its concerns so-called "good intentions." However, in this case it was less about people using good intent as a mask for petty, retributive malice, and more about people honestly believing they were doing right and being obstinate toward the suggestion that there efforts might be misguided.
As I walked away from the scene of the aforementioned collision,
More or less, exactly what I looked like walking away except I wasn't wearing a leather jacket.
I approached that bastion of upscale retail, Jackson Square. For those not familiar with Hamilton, Ontario, that would be sarcasm.
Anyhow as I approached it I noticed two reps from "Because I am a Girl" soliciting sponsorship for third world girls. One girl called to me as I was crossing the street. I supposed I looked like an easy mark for a charity as my attire (yoga pants, yoga mat on backpack, FiveFingers shoes, lilac-coloured bandana and skateboard in tow) bespoke a left-leaning individual burdened with a goodly amount of liberal guilt.
I let her run her pitch to me about some girl from whereverthefuck-istan who, through the efforts (money) of sponsors had risen to become the first female lawyer in her proud country. FTR I don't think too much of the legal profession but for this girl's sake and since we were about to butt heads on more important issues I feigned like I was impressed by this young 3rd world girl's achievement.
The chick giving me the speech, let's call her Mary Sue, gave me the full sales pitch which included well-worn lines like:
"I'm gonna level with you, we're out here fundraising today"
"It's really not so much about the money" (a direct contradiction to the first line)
"Have you ever been to a developing country?" (I guess this was used as an icebreaker to gain my empathy)
When she had exhausted her supply of anecdotal stories about minor achievements in third world shit-holes (with me, all the while smiling politely and trying not to come off like a smug, cynical asshole ) she came out with it and asked me if I would like to support her cause.
I don't know if she was taken aback by my frankness, but she asked me why so I began asking her why the hypothetical street girl turned lawyer was impoverished and she told me something indistinct about not enough schools. When I asked her why there were no schools she said there was no one to build them. I of course, asked why and she said she didn't know and asked me if I knew. Without getting too in-depth I explained (none too eloquently, as if often the case when your audience is not receptive) that the reasons for the impoverishment of the third world were structural and that in-the-box solutions like charities only helped a sick system limp on a little longer when it should be allowed to fail. As I explained this her eyes seemed to glaze over. I went on to talk about just like there was absolute poverty in some parts of the world there was relative poverty here in Canada which was also structural. Not grasping the distinction between absolute and relative, she started protesting that noone in Canada or the US was starving and they all had a place to sleep if they wanted it. I wasn't about to argue her on this point but I felt tempted to say "google any number of Indian reservations or Camden, NJ, or Detroit, MI or Baltimore, MD or Florida slavery." I didn't mention these things because I wasn't wanting to convey the notion that we should focus on domestic problems at the expense of international ones (the Libertarian platform) but rather that things are tough all over and that all of these problems are connected.
Like I said though she was unreceptive, and though the conversation remained cordial I don't feel I expressed myself well. The tragedy of the situation is that the world needs good people like her, filled with passionate intensity to do the right thing, but it needs them to be better educated about causality and what leads to poverty, crime, violence, and the abuse of females.
Me throwing what limited money I have at the problem is not gonna solve the problem. That doesn't mean that we should never use our monetary resources to help others. By all means, buy someone a sandwich or a coffee or whatever, but understand that the more valuable gift is your time. Real charity, that is to say, charity that actively works to bring about the day where charity is no longer required, does not require large, established foundations to redistribute cancerous debt-based currency after it has taken its cut. It simply requires good, educated people to take account of the eventualities of their actions and modify their behaviour accordingly.
My Friends,
Yesterday was an interesting day for a few reasons but one particularly interesting happening was that I witnessed someone getting hit by a car. Rather I witnessed the aftermath of someone getting hit by a car, which in some ways is worse. Like I said, I didn't actually see dude get hit by a car, instead I was walking north on James St. S when my reverie was interrupted by a woman yelling at a car "I SAW YOU! YOU HIT HIM! STOP! YOU HIT THAT MAN!"
The car, which was stopped in the middle of the intersection as she yelled, completed its turn and pulled over. A well-dressed young man stepped out and ran over to the man he allegedly had just hit. The man was getting up kind of wobbly and mercifully the shrewish woman had ceased her rantings.
I didn't see anyone in a rush to dial 911 so I did and just mentioned that dude had gotten hit by a car and that he was on the other side of the road so I couldn't tell if he was badly damaged. In order to help the dispatcher out some, I walked over to the guy and confirmed that he was wiping some blood from his face but that I didn't want to crowd him because he already had some people around him, not least of which the concerned motorist who allegedly hit him.
As I approached to get a closer look for the sake of 911 the shrewish woman yelled to me "Did you see what happened?" I looked at her with more disdain than was probably necessary and said "no." I explained to 911 that I wasn't an eyewitness and I was looking to be on my way so I got off the phone with them and continued on my journey. So ended my involvement in said matter.
Now you have probably noticed my harsh sentiments toward the lady who originally caught my attention with her rantings. What pissed me off about her was that she seemed to me like a no-account person who found herself in a position to be important for one day and seized upon it. She seemed to be revelling in her importance and it would not surprise me if she recounted her role in this minor affair til her last days. Like people who clamor for harsh, inhumane punishments for criminals, she seemed more interested in pointing out the guilt of the motorist than attending to the injured party (interestingly enough the person who seemed most concerned for the injured party was the motorist, although I concede that self-preservation may have been a factor here).
I was reminded of the story of Orestes, son of Agamemnon, who killed his mother and uncle, after they had killed his father upon his return from the Trojan War. Until he was cleared by the Gods, Orestes was tormented by the brass-clawed Furies who taunted him pointing out his guilt (Matricide) unyieldingly while clawed at him. This woman was a Fury. Her sole purpose seemed to be tormenting the "guilty party" and to me there's no merit in that because it does nothing to make things better.
I don't know the outcome of the accident/investigation but my primary hope is that the injured party had no severe injuries and if he did that they will be addressed. My secondary hope is that the motorist, probably someone who just made a mistake rather than a malicious misanthrope, does not have egregious legal fees and life disturbances to deal with on account of one lapse in judgement. My third hope, and it is almost foolish to hope for given how unlikely it seems, is that the woman who drew my attention to the occurrence realizes that pointing out guilt and blame and ostracizing offenders does nothing to make the world a better place. Like I said, I won't hold my breath on that last one.
Stay Thirsty,
-Andre Guantanamo
My Friends,
Some issues, while no-brainers, are divisive nonetheless. Same-sex marriage is one of those issues. Notwithstanding the the fact that term itself is steeped in legal bias and loaded language ("sex" as it pertains to the courts is a legal construct, as is the institution of marriage) what are we really putting our energies toward? The notion that same-sex marriage is a sign of progress is predicated on the assumption that marriage is an ideal circumstance which is being denied to a segment of the population. My chief qualm with such well-intentioned actions as people putting...
...this image up as their FB profile pic in a show of solidarity with same sex couples hoping to get married...
...is not that it is so-called "slacktivism," but that they seemingly have not questioned the institution of marriage itself. This is understandable but inexcusable. We must constantly check our premises because no knowledge or custom we have is empirical; that is to say just because we have been doing something for a while does not make it universal truth.
I posted this picture a while ago:
So I have to ask again: What are we really putting our energies toward? Its funny to me how people will cognitively see the logic behind Stanhope's criticism of marriage but still go on and argue for more access to marriage. i.e. "Well, marriage may be an antiquated custom and an outgrowth of scarcity*, but everyone should have access to it." This is so typical of our usual methods of problem resolution where we are more concerned with surface appearance than deep, possibly messy, structural change.
"You'd rather live in shit than let the world see you work a shovel"
-Lt. Cedric Daniels, The Wire
Rather than removing a sickness we would rather ensure that everyone has fair and equal access to it.
The Political Action Feint
I think same-sex marriage is just the latest in a string of accommodated, politically-safe movements which have been allowed because they don't actually threaten the status quo but serve as great polarizing rallying points for different camps (i.e. Divide & Conquer). LGBT rights are the successors to Women's suffrage (& Lib later on) and the Civil Rights movement. I don't want to denigrate those movements but what did they actually accomplish and how deeply did they change things? Women's suffrage for example got women the right to vote. Now certainly everyone should be equal in their so-called "rights," but essentially women had a long hard battle for something which is ultimately meaningless. In fact, more than meaningless, it is harmful because it perpetuates the delusion that we actually have a say, through politics, in how our countries are run. (I'm not even going to get into how obsolete the concept of a nation-state actually is...)
Similarly, movements to put women in the workplace came at a time when our levels of technological understanding were getting to the point that cutting the workday in half for every man was looking like a reality.
"We are being afflicted with a new disease of which some readers may not yet have heard the name, but of which they will hear a great deal in the years to come -namely, technological unemployment. This means unemployment due to our discovery of means of economizing the use of labor outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labor."
But instead of minimizing the workday through automation processes, everyone (women included) now has a McJob which on top of being typically underpaid is also technologically pointless and socially irrelevant. Do women really feel like they won something in this regard? (Note: I am not blaming women joining the workforce for the proliferation of McJobs I just want to point out that the workforce doubled when the workday was ready to be halved. The reasons it weren't halved are many but come down to people needing access to work for income.)
Fast forward to the civil rights movement and we see more accommodation. Now rather than paraphrase George Carlin here I will just put down a direct quotation because he said it so aptly:
"I don't really, honestly, deep down believe in political action. I think the system contracts and expands as it wants to. It accommodates these changes. I think the civil rights movement was an accommodation on the part of those who own the country. I think they see where their self-interest lies; they see a certain amount of freedom seems good -an illusion of liberty- give these people a voting day every year so they will have the illusion of meaningless choice."
..."The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins."
-George Carlin, incisive as always
Bearing this point of view in mind, what did civil rights really achieve? Well black people in the south can ride the front of the bus, so there's that at least. Also, segregation is not legally sanctioned anymore, and we all know that if something is not legal people won't do it.
Bitch Please!
In my own personal estimation very little was accomplished in the civil rights movement beyond black folk gaining nominal "equality" with the white lower and middle classes who are just as disenfranchised as segregated blacks were.
"Congratulations on your equality, black people. Here are your new peers."
This same issue came up recently when a girl I know tried to convince me that I had some great advantage over her as a male. Ummm...no.
Look at the circumstances of those you seek equality with before you set equality with them as your endgame. You might be sorely disappointed to find out they have it as bad or worse than you. To clarify, I don't deny that certain groups have endured terrible injustices throughout history; slavery. internment, persecutions have all happened at various times and in various places and it would be insensitive to deny the significance of these events. However, I contend that such instances are outgrowths of a general inequality which still exists at all times even if a certain visible demographic is not being targeted.
On Using One Story to Distract you From Another
Now there are a lot of (more or less) well-intentioned libertarian groups who point out that the same-sex marriage issue in the news is meant to detract from important news like the Monsanto Protection bill. In a reductive sense, these news outlets (Death Before Disinformation et al.) are absolutely right. But on the other hand any government could just as easily have the media focus on the Monsanto bill to distract the population from something else. Neither the Monsanto bill nor the same sex marriage issue are fundamental, foundational issues. Rather they can both be used as needed to distract people from more fundamental issues. This is the problem with libertarianism (and any -ism really): when you define your position as counter to big government, you make a boogie monster out of it and end up endowing all of its actions as evil (which is not realistic) instead of looking at the causal chain of events which sets the government in opposition to its people.
Back to Well Intentioned (Sl)Activism)
I realize I got off on a bit of a tangent there, but tangential discussions are useful in that they provide evidence for how all things are connected. Every issue in society shares a common thread with every other issue, hence the tangents. Hence too my admonishments toward reductive and limited agitation for one narrow goal. I mean how can I really be expected to get riled up for women's rights...
...when they don't do fuck all for this kid?
How am supposed to give a shit about starving kids in Africa when feeding them still doesn't protect...
...these women from rapists.
Even then, how am I supposed to agitate for women's rights when doing so would not serve...
...the homosexuals who live in fear of violent reprisals for their orientations.
Finally, how can I profess to be a supporter of the gays, the women or the visible racial minorities when supporting those groups does nothing for...
...the straight white males. That fabled privileged class who rules the world.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I want to get the point across that any well-intentioned action which is not specifically calculated to improve the life of EVERYONE on the planet in a tangible way is just so much masturbation; nothing more than a way to make you feel good without actually doing anything.
That may seem like a tall order but there are channels to go through which would have a net positive effect on the planet and everyone in it if more people were aware of them. First, an understanding of causality is required so that you can look at all the ills of the world and trace the causal chain of all of them back to a common mechanism. Then you simply suspend and impede all actions which support that mechanism.
Ok, so its not that simple. And if you look at the track record of people who have challenged the status quo at a structural level you see that it can be a hazardous endeavour. Martin Luther King and Gandhi got assassinated because they attacked the roots of the inequality which pervades society and offered an effective weapon against it in the form of non-violent non-participation. Whatever issues they started out as champions of, at some point they realized that they were fighting something bigger and that meaningful change could only come from addressing that bigger thing.
By comparison, Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson are still alive. I am not saying they are not well-intentioned people who didn't do important work, but their messages were hardly rallying cries which every person on the planet could get behind.
And this is just it. If you want to help the gays, you can't do that by loving the gays. You gotta love everyone. That means we gotta break down these barriers of seeing other groups as separate and apart from us, and other people as separate and apart from us as well. You'll find that when you do this there are very few popular movements to run with. The established, accepted agitation groups represent only fragments of the population and so are necessarily exclusive in some respect. Furthermore, by hoping to have legislation passed, they know better than to piss on the carpet. In other words they don't cross certain lines and instead they play ball with lawmakers. They have to. Chances are, if any politician is talking about any movement, that movement has already been corrupted and is therefore safe for political approval and backing.
The right issues are not the popular ones. The important questions are the ones few, if any, are asking. To get back to the initial point of this post. Always check what you are actually fighting for, whether its marriage rights, minority rights or whatever. Critical thought may reveal that you are not aiming high enough in your aspirations.
Stay Thirsty,
-Andre Guantanamo
*When I refer to marriage as an outgrowth of scarcity, I mean it literally. What better way to ensure a potential suitor doesn't leave your daughter when she turns out to be infertile or otherwise burdensome than to have the union legally ratified and unbreakable? Although we dress it up now, its the same prevailing logic behind things like common-law status for two people living together. If the more financially stable one decides to up and leave the other it can be economically disadvantageous so we brought the government into the equation (much to the chagrin of Mr. Stanhope) to arbitrate between the haves and have-nots.
