"Sold Out" or "Sell Out"?

I have often heard people comment on this or that person or group "selling out". In this sense meaning they aren't as "cool" as they were (generally because they are now successful) or they are doing something different than before. This may be another contrivance to make us feel better about our lack of creativity or, seen another way, a division to keep people distracted from an underlying tension. I will hold that it is due to a clash of fundamental values that the parties hold. The very nature of capitalism demands that items are produced for profit; this holds true even for artists. Artists have a desire to create and display or distribute their art. This means that anyone with a message they want to transmit has to "sell" it to do so; as do those who simply wish to live and create art. The artist will feel a "cheapening" of their art, with cause, as there is a grain of truth to people thinking art is not meant to be sold. Yet there is nothing in that which says we should vilify the artist for doing so. It is natural to want to create and, once created, to share that creation with others. It is also natural to want to survive and prosper; but to do so in a capitalist culture, one must have capital. So here we have another instance of "blaming the victim", where artists are disparaged for doing what is natural inside a system that is not.

See previous blog, on artists v. entertainers of 20July06, for more.

The Law of the People, or Law of the Out-Land-ish

It is an interesting fact that law is not developed in a vacuum, that it is dependent upon the vagaries of popular opinion and cultural context. This is important to remember because we are often told that Law is impartial and Justice is absolute. How can this be if our courts can be swayed by the outcry of the populace? When judges are answerable to the citizenry? Could we possibly claim judicial impartiality when the judges have to bring their own perspective and viewpoint to the bench?

We are in fact blind in thinking that Justice ever could or even should be blinkered. What good is law that does not see the human face of those it would judge? How can it be "Just" to convict a person of a capital offense regardless of circumstance? What about age? Will we kill our own children for their innocent mistakes with the same laws that murder adult citizens who have premeditated a murder? Why is it I can only list that one capital offense? Why is rape or perjury not punishable by death? This makes no sense, to have judges to arbit punishment while at the same time taking away any differentiation they can make. There is no judgement involved in applying an algorithm: X crime = Y punishment. There is no justice in not differentiating between passionate and premeditated, youth and adult, cruel and competent.

More Unedited Ranting

I recently sent this off to my representatives in the nation's capitol in hopes of illuminating and influencing them somewhat on the issue of energy:

I would very much like to offer some information along with my opinion about a couple issues surrounding this topic. First, let me acknowledge that I was alerted to the possibility of using coal-to-liquid-fuel (GTL) technology by MoveOn.org, and was surprised that this is open for discussion. I can only hope that it signals a change in direction that something of this nature is being considered. Secondly, I have recently read Joshua Tickell's book "Biodiesel America" and if you haven't read it or taken advantage of his knowledge and insight in some manner, I strongly urge you to do so. He has succinctly very well laid out information and choices, as well as evaluations of many fuel sources. Next, I very much believe that we have taken too many haphazard steps in securing sustainable, clean sources for energy and fuels. Consequently, we find ourselves in quite a bind and seeking more desperately than if we had begun a serious, earnest quest for alternatives sooner. Hopefully we have learned from this and will take the time to evaluate the possibilities and outcomes of the options we have at this time. It is clear that a number of these are untenable, that we need more than they have to offer. To whit, BioDiesel, GTL, and Ethanol are all fuels we can use and control which, with proper oversight, can be ours into the future. Likewise, Biomass, Geothermal, Wind, Solar, and Hydro power sources can be used in conjunction with each other to meet our needs. I list these specifically so that it is clear that I am referring to our renewable, sustainable resources. Finally, we need to diversify and decentralize our grid both to make it more reliable and less subject to failure (through attack or overuse), as well as to keep consumers closer and more involved in the regulation and production of our own energy.

How Different....

For the longest time I thought that to be different, one needed to demonstrate a difference, to make it obvious for all to see. I thought one had to act crazy, look really weird, or have something noticeably off about ones' self to set one apart and make others aware of it. It's crap, it is just a way to justify needing attention, craving to be noticed. I was younger, and I didn't really know the rationalisation behind why I thought that was the way to individuality. What was happening is that I was fooling myself into thinking that, in order to cover the truth from myself. I didn't want to accept or admit that I was looking for someone to accept me. It was a way to test people, to see if they would see me through all the "difference" and still want to know me. Once I saw this, I was highly amused at the irony: I wanted people to see me, even though I was disguising myself. I wanted them to decode who I actually was, and like me even though I couldn't just be me and let them know me.

In fact, being "different" has become mainstream, something that everyone is trying to do, because it's "in". I think in part this is because there are so many of us now, we are so crowded together and homogenized. Being different truly only means that you are so, not that anyone else needs to know; there is no badge that one wears, and being seen as so does not make it any more valid. The only true way to be different-to have that actual uniqueness-is to be ones' self. There is no one else in the world who can do that, and that is truly different.

Discriminating Tastes

Let me offer one simple post here, everyone can follow this and I promise I'll be straightforward. Discrimination is discrimination, prejudice is prejudice, and bigotry is bigotry-and they are all the same. It's very obvious that whatever you call it, "reverse-racism" or "double-back flip, half-gainer", however you adorn it, it is what it really is. It doesn't matter if it's "reverse-" or "positive-", because that's just one more way of having a prejudice in the very language of discrimination. Being race/class/sex/etc.-ist is discriminatory and being bigoted is having a prejudice. None of it is good or acceptable and there's no need to complicate it.

That's it.