here's what school is really all about

Maryland teacher calls police when her 13 year old student refuses to say the pledge of allegiance.

We need men with guns to deal with the threat posed by a child who won't swear fealty to a bloody fucking rag on a stick. Bow before the altar of the state, lest the state's hired goons drag you away.

life and the spectacle

J.R. Boyd's LadyPoverty regularly posts excellent stuff, but this one really blew me away, and inspired a lot of thought about my own life. I recommend the whole thing, though I'll excerpt some of it to share my own thoughts.

It starts with this quote:

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle:

The whole life of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevail presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. All that once was directly lived has become mere representation.

I've occasionally noted a feeling of disconnectedness from my world, or that I just don't quite belong where I am. Boyd's elaboration on Debord's thought is a brilliant explanation of a big part of the proximate mechanisms at work in that feeling, defining the spectacle as "the industrial production of information under capitalism."

This passage hits especially close to home:

I have a younger colleague at one of my jobs. When I am able to speak authoritatively on some matter of commercial urgency -- the release of a new movie or electronic product -- we enjoy a warm working relationship. The rest of our time, however, is comprised mostly of crickets and tumbleweeds. It is a sad testament to the fact that we don't consume enough of the same things with the same enthusiasm, for it is only in consuming things that one exercises that degree of individuality to which others can relate.

I relate to this very strongly, especially in regards to colleagues from my former professions and many people I've considered friends over the years. In academia it is a little bit better, to the extent that matters of academic interest are distinct from matters of commercial urgency, which is debatable. Still, even here, in a factory of science nerds whose shared purpose is, at least ostensibly, the pursuit of an understanding of the world, there are lots of nice people to whom I'm unable to relate without reference to movies or sports or some other mass media spectacles. Which isn't to say I dislike or think poorly of those people; quite to the contrary, I lament that spectacle is our only medium of discourse because I imagine I'd enjoy being able to bond over something more real.

Boyd continues:

Divorced from its commercial utility, individuality does not translate well. In fact, it is often met with silence and a horrified expression.

I think I've always tended to push the boundaries of acceptable individualism. In my first corporate job I did this mainly for its own sake, and a bit as rebellion against a stifling culture. Colleagues decorated their cubicles with sports banners; I strung rubber bands between thumbtacks at the right tensions that when I plucked them I could play the "NBC" network 3 notes. I broke unspoken rules by making the same jokes at lunch as I did in the office, knowing they'd get genuine laughs in the former setting, and nervous laughs in the latter. Basically I pushed them just far enough that they thought I was a bit weird, but not so far that they didn't like me. The reaction when I quit illustrates this tension rather well, and their response to my explanation suggests that lots of people would like to break free and be more individual, but are unable to do so for various reasons.

In academia I wouldn't go so far as to say that non-spectacle individuality is encouraged (again with the questionable exception of academic specialty), but a much wider range is tolerated than in the corporate world. But these days my efforts at individuality often have a moral/political purpose, which is where Boyd's final point rings true for me:

Anything which lacks its own promotional budget cannot be communicated intelligibly without enormous effort, because nobody enjoys a preexisting familiarity with it. As Guy Debord would say, our social relationships are mediated by the Spectacle: we can talk to each other about Haiti as long as it is made real by the TV. The rest of the time Haiti does not exist, so we can't talk about it. And that's because nobody will have anything to say about Haiti unless it is on the TV. If you had something to say about Haiti before it was on the TV, then you are a very odd bird, indeed, because nobody else shared that experience. Nobody knew it could exist, or why it should.

I hold political positions with which most people are unfamiliar because they're excluded from mainstream media. People have limited patience for political proselytism so I've taken the approach of trying to amuse people on a regular basis, and then occasionally throw out something substantive (It raised $50, which isn't much, but grad students basically live below the poverty line, so I was happy with that level of donation). Consistently keep people entertained, and they're more willing to listen to your occasional non-entertaining messages. Interestingly, that's the same basic model as commercial media, only they capture the profits for the enrichment of an elite few.

A challenging aspect of the whole thing is that it is pretty hard to be funny without reference to the spectacle, since a lot of humor depends on a shared base of knowledge. I don't want to use the spectacle, so I often try to make goodhearted jokes about people everyone knows, but sometimes I resort to movies. It's easier, and hell, it's fun. But I don't want to do it too often. I think my favorite of all these silly lists, and perhaps my best effort to combine my goal of raising awareness about important political/moral issues and keeping people amused was this one, in which I used Obama's Nobel Peace prize as a basis for a bunch of simple "opposite" jokes.

Anyway, props to J.R. Boyd for a great post, and check out his second post on the spectacle, here.

IOZ: "our government is a huge, implacable, rapacious, imovable death god into whose insatiable maw we are damned to make perpetual sacrifice"

reasons

"...remember when all Good Democrats agreed that Karl Rove's attempts to influence the DOJ was really bad because prosecutorial decisions are not supposed to be politicized?"

No, Glenn, I don't.

buzz

Suddenly I'm getting a Google "buzz" icon in my gmail, which I assume is a new social networking thing. It tells me I now have a bunch of "followers," who will get a notification every time I share something in Google Reader, which I do a lot, or post a blog entry, which I do a lot. So I assume they'll get a lot of shit from me for a few days, and then they'll un-follow me, because why would anyone want to get a notification every time I do anything?

house under water

About two and a half years ago I sold my house. As that was happening, the real estate market was beginning its collapse, and I was aware of this fact and very nervous. After reading this piece, I just checked zillow.com for an estimate of the current value of my old house. It is probably worth $80,000 to $100,000 less than I sold it for, if not less. I wonder what life would be like for me right now if that sale hadn't gone through. I continue to feel very lucky about how it all worked out. I feel bad for the woman who bought my house, and everyone else whose home is now worth less than they paid for it. What a terrible situation to be in.

My takeaway from this is that the only real hope for salvaging what's left of our environment isn't new technologies; it is changing our behavior - trying to meet the vast majority of our needs through local exchange with known and trusted people. It is too easy to just buy something off a shelf and close our eyes to everything that happened to get it to that shelf.

I'm starting to think maybe I shouldn't be using gmail.