Robert Johnson

I've been meaning to get his album for awhile - King of the Delta Blues Singers - although it can hardly be called his album, it's just what Columbia could rustle up in 1961. Even still, it's phenomenal. And illuminating. It's unreal how much he clearly influenced so many of my favorite artists (Bob Dylan and Led Zeppelin are the two that immediately spring to mind). Even The Lemon Song's infamous "squeeze [me baby], 'till the juice runs down my leg" was pulled from Johnson (who's original lyric in Traveling Riverside Blues was "squeeze my lemon, 'till the juice runs down my leg" - still pretty racy, if you ask me).

I am going to highly recommend this to anyone who is seriously into music - recommend, also known as code for "purchase this immediately even if you have to rob little old ladies to do so". Afterwards, report back. I'd be very interested in what everyone else thinks - esp. if you're into blues.

Krugman and I on fear

October 29, 2007
Fearing Fear Itself
By PAUL KRUGMAN

In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.

Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.

Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”

Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”

Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.

Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.

Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.

Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.” He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.

And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.

All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.

Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.

And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.

Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.

Yes, Krugman is on fire today, and it's a topic I was ruminating over all weekend. Here's the thing – is terrorism really THAT bad? I mean, it sucks – don't get me wrong – I'm against any movement that kills people / disrupts the flow of business and life / uses fear to make its point – but the thing is, our reaction to their actions is exactly what gives them the power. And when you look at the numbers, terrorists don't really kill that many people at all. Gang wars kill so many more. Drug dealers. Cigarettes. Cars. Peanuts. In retrospect, the entire war looks completely ridiculous. And so does this administration (not that they needed help from statistics). Think about it – the war on terror has been pretty much their ENTIRE platform and the GOP is continuing it into 2008. The problem is, Americans were duped. Many still are. This deserves a chapter: "How to tell which threats are important to our national security and which threats are not – hint: the most dangerous ones are the ones they don't want you to be aware of". I am, of course, referencing our own apathy. Notice how neither side has appealed to the youth in a large way in the 2008 election proceedings thus far (well, aside from Colbert – insert sad chuckle here) – they've already written us off as inconsequential. Plus, it's in both parties interests to keep us sedated and apathetic. The truth is, the youth tend to be on the forefront of dramatically new ideas. We need to be. We've got less invested in the current system than any other demographic, so if change is going to come, it's from us. And even the democrats are interested in keeping us the status quo, at least in terms of the youth – it means they'll still get the same (small) number of votes as in previous elections without having to meet or even take into consideration the demands of a new generation.

How to avoid this? Make them care, of course! What does that mean? Effing vote already!

Conspiracy Theory

Actually, this post relates to In Rainbows, the new Radiohead album, as well. It was recently brought to my attention (actually, I found it on http://current.com - to which a coworker turned me on - independent sources [i.e. you, me, anyone] report on whatever news they want - pretty interesting) that In Rainbows may be a complementary piece to OK Computer.

See full Current article here which links to this more comprehensive article.

So, first off - does this sound weird? Sure. Is Radiohead one of the only bands creative and messed up enough to do this? Also, yes. Maybe the Flaming Lips could pull this off, but I'm not even sure about that. So I bit. I made the playlist. I listened to the crossfades.

Results: Seems legit. I like the blend of the two better than either album individually (esp. In Rainbows though - OK Computer was pretty solid on its own) and the songs do flow VERY nicely into one another. Does this mean it was intended? Not necessarily. It could be a very beautiful coincidence. But try it out, I'm very curious to see what others think.

NPR takes the work out of it

All Songs Considered is going to break my piggy bank, I swear. More songs/albums/artists to check out:

"The Only Night" Ian Love
The Handsome Family
"Eighteen Days" The Eighteenth Day of May
Django Reinhardt
Ok-Oyut System, Extra Golden
The Walkmen

In Rainbows review

First off, before I even talk about the music, let me say - because of the revolutionary new way they chose to distribute the album, I'm inclined to like it. Purely based on that, I want to like it quite badly. But unfortunately there are benchmarks - there's the music, the world's current situation and their past recordings to consider. Note - I didn't read any other reviews before writing this. I still haven't even finished the Pitchfork one.

I'll do the songs one-by-one, then the album as a whole.

15 Step - I like this as an opening track. Grabs the attention, v. pleasant to listen to, I like the rhythm a lot! And the children's cries were a real treat. As for the lyrics... I've had a bit of trouble deciphering them (it happens with Radiohead) but in general, I feel it's about the lack of control we feel in our lives - that we're being manipulated and even when we try to do right, we "end up where [we] started".
Bodysnatchers - I dig the music in this one a lot. The entire album is a lot more fast-paced than most previous releases, which adds a whole new body-shaking dimension to my experience. This track especially. Anyhow, the lyrics are pretty straightforward, in Radiohead terms anyway - and v. political.

"Has the light gone out for you?

Cause the light's gone for me

It is the 21st century

It is the 21st century

You can fight it like a dog

And they brought me to my knees

They got scared and they put me in

They got scared and they put me in

All the lies run around my face

All the lies run around my face

And for anyone else to see

And for anyone else to see."

More or less, this is our current administration's biggest trademark. I talked it over with Paul, and he says the U.S. and the U.K. are pretty equal in their use of the media to instill fear and apathy in the domestic population. I see this as a reaction to the over-presence of the media in today's life. And holy crap, it IS the 21st century. I keep forgetting.
Nude - Here's where it slows down to baby-making jams. Haha, just kidding of course. This uses lyrics from a unreleased track "Big Ideas (Don't Get Any)". Again, very political message. God, I love that about them. Extremely pleasant to listen to, the chill music flows perfectly with Thom's angelic voice. And again, it's just about the hopelessness we all feel. It really makes me want to cry.
Weird Fishes/Arpeggi - Not the most memorable track on the album, but I still like to listen to it. It just seems a little like... more of the same, you know? Musically and lyrically.
All I Need - I really like the music in this one - sounds so dark, ethereal. I interpret as a person who willingly subjugates their own personal needs/interests in favor of another's. I tried to interpret this optimistically, but like most Radiohead songs, I realized it cannot be done. Everybody's looking for a leader, some meaning, something. It can even be about the fans - when you think about it, we are like moths circling Yorke's flame. Waiting to absorb their message, putting ourselves, our own thoughts, in second place. In our own minds, we're the next act.
Faust Arp - Beautiful opening and altogether a gorgeous composition. I'm a little confused on the lyrics still, but I sense a lot of disappointment. I just don't know with whom yet.
Reckoner - This may be my favorite track on the album. It feels more powerful than the others (even has a more powerful title) and a succinct message.

"You can't take it with you

Disavow the pleasure."

I think this is full-on use of guilt tactics. We've put righteousness after material gain and our selfish individuality above global justice. We're bastards.
House of Cards - I dig this track as well, especially the two opening lines: "I don't want to be your friend, I just want to be your lover." To me, this is almost the opposite of "All I Need" - the speaker of the song is going to take what he wants from you, no matter what you want. Does that sound familiar (politically)? The music is very pretty.
Jigsaw Falling Into Place - Haha, when I read the lyrics, I was like, "damn, been there." Again, I think it has bigger implications, but I'm prone to believe it about all Radiohead songs. This is what we do with our time - we drink until we forget what life is like because we want to escape (also mentioned in "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi"). I'm always surprised by how dark Radiohead really is, and I think that's one of the reasons I like them so much. No other band is so consistently and strikingly dark. This song is a great example of that.
Videotape - From the onset, this song makes me sad. And mad props to Yorke for putting "Mephistopheles" into a song. I think this is a personal song, about his child / the future he will have to grow up in. But I like that they left the album with a little bit of hope: "No matter what happens now, You shouldn't be afraid, Because I know today has been the most perfect day I've ever seen."

Ok, album as a whole? I like it, but I have to say a lot of the songs sound very similar. I wish they had experimented and diverged more in the final arrangement of this album. There are messages, but they are incredibly subtle. Not that I think meanings should be shouted or explained outright, but In Rainbows seemed almost too muted. Compared to most of the albums released nowadays - it's phenomenal, of course. But compared to prior Radiohead releases, it disappoints a bit. Plus, after a politically powerful album like Hail to the Thief, I was a little sad there wasn't more outrage. It's like they've almost given up as well. So, in summary, good, not great and could be more substantial - but still excellent, musically and lyrically, and growing on me by the minute.

Note - I'm probably way off-base with most of my interpretations. I've been consumed with political thoughts etc. lately and I'm sure I've filtered it all through that. If anyone has any thoughts, I greatly welcome them.

Podcasts

I love them. I can't believe I just got into them. Why didn't you people force me into it earlier? ;-) Currently, I am enthralled with NPR's All Songs Considered. Here's a few songs it particularly turned me on to (note to self: acquire these later or get the album):


"12/26" Kimya Dawson
"Collecting Rocks" Super XX Man
"Rapture Riders" (mash-up between Blondie and The Doors)
"Thanksgiving Waves" Eef Barzelay
"I Want You So Hard" Eagles of Death Metal
"Better Way" Ben Harper
More to come...




**Note - All Songs Considered also does great full concerts - Josh Ritter and Animal Collective are my favorite so far (JRitter does an amazing cover of The River - quality!).





Other podcasts I listen to (keep in mind, I just started so I'm wide open for recommendations):

A Prairie Home Companion's News from Lake Wobegon

Great Speeches in History

KEXP Song of the Day

NPR: Intelligence Squared

The Philosophy Podcast

This American Life

Starting the conversation

Alright, so it all began with a Friedman column....

Generation Q
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 10, 2007

I just spent the past week visiting several colleges — Auburn, the University of Mississippi, Lake Forest and Williams — and I can report that the more I am around this generation of college students, the more I am both baffled and impressed.

I am impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be. I am baffled because they are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be.

One of the things I feared most after 9/11 — that my daughters would not be able to travel the world with the same carefree attitude my wife and I did at their age — has not come to pass.

Whether it was at Ole Miss or Williams or my alma mater, Brandeis, college students today are not only going abroad to study in record numbers, but they are also going abroad to build homes for the poor in El Salvador in record numbers or volunteering at AIDS clinics in record numbers. Not only has terrorism not deterred them from traveling, they are rolling up their sleeves and diving in deeper than ever.

The Iraq war may be a mess, but I noticed at Auburn and Ole Miss more than a few young men and women proudly wearing their R.O.T.C. uniforms. Many of those not going abroad have channeled their national service impulses into increasingly popular programs at home like “Teach for America,” which has become to this generation what the Peace Corps was to mine.

It’s for all these reasons that I’ve been calling them “Generation Q” — the Quiet Americans, in the best sense of that term, quietly pursuing their idealism, at home and abroad.

But Generation Q may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good. When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them.

There is a good chance that members of Generation Q will spend their entire adult lives digging out from the deficits that we — the “Greediest Generation,” epitomized by George W. Bush — are leaving them.

When I was visiting my daughter at her college, she asked me about a terrifying story that ran in this newspaper on Oct. 2, reporting that the Arctic ice cap was melting “to an extent unparalleled in a century or more” — and that the entire Arctic system appears to be “heading toward a new, more watery state” likely triggered by “human-caused global warming.”

“What happened to that Arctic story, Dad?” my daughter asked me. How could the news media just report one day that the Arctic ice was melting far faster than any models predicted “and then the story just disappeared?” Why weren’t any of the candidates talking about it? Didn’t they understand: this has become the big issue on campuses?

No, they don’t seem to understand. They seem to be too busy raising money or buying votes with subsidies for ethanol farmers in Iowa. The candidates could actually use a good kick in the pants on this point. But where is it going to come from?

Generation Q would be doing itself a favor, and America a favor, if it demanded from every candidate who comes on campus answers to three questions: What is your plan for mitigating climate change? What is your plan for reforming Social Security? What is your plan for dealing with the deficit — so we all won’t be working for China in 20 years?

America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.

Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn’t change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall. Virtual politics is just that — virtual.

Maybe that’s why what impressed me most on my brief college swing was actually a statue — the life-size statue of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi. Meredith was the first African-American to be admitted to Ole Miss in 1962. The Meredith bronze is posed as if he is striding toward a tall limestone archway, re-enacting his fateful step onto the then-segregated campus — defying a violent, angry mob and protected by the National Guard.

Above the archway, carved into the stone, is the word “Courage.” That is what real activism looks like. There is no substitute.

Then I forwarded it along...

Let's keep this thing going. I'm pretty much always talking about a revolution, but this Friedman column really did a good job of summing it up. Pass it on and get people prepped - change is coming, I promise.
Love,
M.

The first response was not what anyone expected, but did spur a lot of debate...

I was extremely pissed at that article too, but I think for the opposite reason. I felt like Friedman was just nostalgic for his generation's ideas of "revolution" and forgot one thing: they didn't work! The hippie revolution in the 60s sure didn't bring an end to American wars; the feminist revolution didn't actually get me equal career opportunities with men; the marches for racial equality sure didn't end racism.

Personally, I feel like our generation is smarter than that, we know that you've got to quietly work the system and let capitalism do it's thing, not just march ourselves around our college campuses. It's like the way the market (ok, and Al Gore's Nobel prize) is quietly convincing people we need to be more environmentally friendly, and homosexuals are gradually being more welcomed by mainstream society.

My decidedly unrevolutionary two cents,
xxx

I disagreed...

First of all, there are many people who feel like xxx: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/l12friedman.html
and I'd like to thank her for responding. I've been thinking about these things for awhile as most of you know, and quite recently have solidified my own viewpoint. I'm not saying hers or anyone else's isn't valid, but these are my thoughts.

Secondly, while I agree that maybe it is nostalgia for the obvious revolutions of the past that caused Friedman to write the column, similar yet more rational sentiments have been expressed to me (and granted, by me) for much of my life. The answer, I feel, is in between the two viewpoints (in our case, Friedman and xxx). Going back to the 60s is not going to accomplish anything (though I hardly agree with xxx because I do think that they accomplished a lot - you have to remember that they were protesting many issues simultaneously back then - Vietnam was mixed with the Civil Rights Movement and throughout there was the fear caused by the Cold War - eventually we did get out of Vietnam when the administration was faced with how much of their constituency did not support their actions [granted, among other factors] - African-Americans got the right to vote and from this female's cubicle anyway, it looks like the feminist movement was a pretty big success --- moreover, without so much action behind it, think how long these changes could have been dragged out, and how this parallels what's going on now), mainly because it would be extremely contrived and phony. But the underlying theory to those movements should be salvaged. The thing that worries me about action in our digital age (Are you aware that there is an entire virtual world now? People spend money on virtual Prada bags, I wish I were joking.) is that it's faceless. The reason marches caused Washington to reexamine their efforts is that decision-makers could see how many (voting - clearly another aspect we need to work on) bodies were against them and participants could see how many others of their generation agreed and believed in the same principles they did. The baby boomers took control - they were the biggest demographic and didn't just decide to comfortably "work the system" but rather bond together as a group with similar upbringings and experiences. What bothers me about our generation, is that we are a deadly combination of fragmented and apathetic. Back then, at least there was a generational conscious and an on-going socio-political conversation, a sense of comradery.

Nowadays, it seems to me that we walk around scared to death of our neighbors. Think about it - how many strangers do you even say a polite "hello" to each day? We were going through one of the most important development phases of our life (change from high school to college) when 9/11 occurred and through the immediate aftermath, and since then, we've been dealing with a media inundation of the constant threat of terrorism. We see and intake nothing but fear, and thanks to technology/the internet, we also absorb higher quantities of information now then ever. So this fear is a foreseeable consequence of the times, but not one I see lending itself to our progressive development as human beings. That's where I see the need for grassroots style effort - I think our fellow "Millenials" need proof that they're not alone in the struggle to be a better person, a better generation of people. It's hard to try and pick up the slack for the rest of your generation, particularly when your perception of them incorporates mainly things like getting drunk, Girls Gone Wild, spending money on designer handbags, Paris Hilton/Britney Spears/Lindsay Lohan/etc., even just walking around oblivious on the streets with their iPods. And honestly, that's pretty much where I run into people my own age - bars, shops, and on the sidewalks - maybe it's a pattern confined to my own experiences, but I don't think so (note: I'm not still in college - I can see how those who are may have different perceptions). Granted, many will point out that I am a big hypocrite because I partake in these activities as well, which is true (except for the celebrity BS, GGW, and handbags), but I am actively trying to change and have devoted another part of my time to volunteering and intellectual pursuits, which, I am hoping anyway, many others are doing as well. But when you think about really going out on a limb for social change, it's hard not to become bitter: as in, why spend my time fighting climate change/the Iraq war/intolerance/etc.etc. if I'm not supported by those around me? It's hard to be an environmentalist and think of your generation as progressive in that sense, when you see kids climbing into Hummers etc. It's depressing, frankly. A return to grassroots would also infuse accountability into the equation - I think that seeing the effort that "revolutionary" leaders put into it would make others feel more accountable for their actions (aka the guilt factor - but in this case, used in a progressive manner). Thus, the revival of a generational conscious (because the echo boomers i.e. us and beyond will be the second largest demographic segment after the baby boomers - the opportunity for a mass shift of values hasn't been this apparent in a long time) is what I believe would be the most significant outcome of a return to these "outdated" forms of protest.

Thirdly, the notion that our generation is smarter. This may be true, but smarter does not equal more effective, and in a lot of ways, it seems to be pointing to more self-indulgent. As for working the system, I absolutely do not believe that a) people are "working it" to its full potential or b) that it's enough. Another one of the reasons, I feel anyhow (this is all Melinda's opinions), the hippie revolutions were ineffective, is that they incorporated a lot of socialist ideas. Ok, by now, we have realized that socialism isn't really a viable option. Beautiful concept, doesn't work in practice. Fine, fair enough. But what frustrates me is that the systems we do have in place aren't being utilized to their full extent, particularly by our generation.

Now, I am as big a fan of capitalism as you can probably get, but right now, in lieu of making real social change, both companies and consumers are putting in the minimal effort/capital needed to appear "green", when actually their resources could allow for a lot more. Honestly, I think using the market as a Stephen Colbert style excuse for political action is both indicative of our generation's laziness ( i.e. no real extra effort involved in buying things that you need), and just another way to get out of performing our real civic duties (and basically screwing both ourselves and the generations that follow) without guilt. Here are my thoughts on the subject - the two "bad guys" in most pseudo-revolutionary heads are a) corporations and b) the government, right? Well, coincidentally, in America - those are the two products of what are supposed to be the most popularly representative forms of economic and political structures currently available. Corporations are a product of capitalism - the system set up to fulfill the consumers' needs. The government is a product of democracy - the system set up to fulfill the citizens' needs. Either way you look at it, the ultimate culprit here is us. People have blamed these organizations and forgotten all about the reason they were founded / structured the way they are. If you want to change them, buy different things (environmentally-friendly, corporations that practice social responsibility, etc.) and vote. Doing the former was xxx's argument, and I agree with her - it's helping. But slowly and not nearly on the scale needed for negating climate change - plus, we as a country are addicted to cheap goods, coming from, oh wait now the biggest polluter in the world, China ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews - and don't get too alarmed about our global competitiveness, we're a close second). And until we tackle social problems like poverty and lack of healthcare, poor American families (a much bigger demographic group than yuppies who shop at Whole Foods) won't have the financial freedom to break their Wal-Mart shackles. Which brings us to democracy and this total f-up of a war we're in.

I believe that this is the area in which we've displayed ourselves lacking the most. We have a system in which the individual in supposed to be accorded the greatest amount of power (note: keep in mind that democracy is also one of America's most high-profile exports) and every single person I've talked to in the past 7 years has felt misrepresented by our government. This is not a coincidence. We've also let the president expand his executive power, get us into wars we clearly don't support, torture people, spy on us, the list goes on. Now, while it would be easy to blame this on the south and forget about it - we should all feel accountable for the injustice our country is doing the world, and its citizens, because in structure, we're the source of this action - either directly or indirectly. Directly in that we elected certain members of the adminstration for the efforts they said they'd undertake, and indirectly in that we haven't stood up to other members (namely Bush/Cheney) who do things we don't approve of. And considering how easy voting is, writing/calling your congressman is, signing an online petition is, there is no excuse. I know because I've done all of those things relatively recently and it's NOT HARD. Not to mention with the proliferation of the internet, it's THAT much easier to spread the word to others (thus why you're getting this e-mail - sorry for those of you who wanted to cruise through life in blissful ignorance/apathy).

Regarding the war, I've talked with a lot of people, both who have participated in "traditional" and/or alternative forms of protest and those who haven't yet merely hold opinions, and the vast majority are wholly disappointed with the reaction of the American population and our administration to the non-support of the efforts in Iraq. It's been compared with Vietnam more times than anyone likes, I believe, and many have asked, "where's the protest?" I see a key distinction, and it follows human nature - I'm sure many of you have also made this connection. During Vietnam, there was the draft, so anyone (well, most anyone - if you or your parents were rich and/or famous, I'm pretty sure that got you a pass) could get called and shipped overseas and fight and die and kill for our country. Now, it's on a volunteer basis, and the outcry of protest is muted - makes sense, people are mainly self-interested. But the notion that this war is not hurting those of us who are fighting is ridiculous and short-sighted. This is where I question the concept of our generation as the smartest. I've attached graphs of both the trade deficit with China (product of capitalism) and the budget deficit (product of democracy) and I don't know if I need to tell you how much this is going to hurt us, financially, as well as geopolitically, in the future. By allowing an unjust war to go on for this long, us non-soldiers lost not only fellow human beings (yep that's right people, even if they're not you, are dying), but the prospect of a brighter, more comfortable future. In fact, our personal fiscal behavior currently is a mirror of the government - debt is at record-levels and there is a national negative savings rate. Someday, all of that is going to have to get paid back, and considering how fast the rest of the world is catching up to our productivity, it's only going to get harder. So no, I don't think our generation is smarter at all - but rather lazy, apathetic and short-sighted, not to mention selfish.

In conclusion, I'm more or less primarily scared for us and for the future. I see people walking around in self-important, self-indulgent bubbles of ignorance, happy to enjoy today's pleasantries and leave thinking about the future to others (remember that the baby boomers were the "wealthiest generation" and since our generation is their kids - basically we're the spoiled brats belonging to the wealthiest generation). Yes, we're making small changes in our behavior, but I think that if we don't change faster, more dramatically and always for the better, we have a good chance of being looked back upon by the eyes of history as the turning point generation - where, in the tradition of ancient Rome and Greece, excess overtook societal progress and America started the downward spiral toward global inconsequence.

And considering Greg's recent encounter in NYC, I don't know if even we're making enough progress there. Jena 6 and racism. School shootings and mental health. Kids are going through life scared to death: http://www.youngvoterstrategies.org/index.php?tg=fileman&idx=get&id=1&gr=Y&path=Research&file=Youth+Monitor+Part+III.pdf . I think we have a lot to work on, and buying the right kind of lightbulb isn't going to cut it.

In conclusion, I don't think we need to completely overthrow the government, or march through every college campus. But I do really believe in everything I said and I believe that we as a people, and particularly as a generation, can accomplish so much more than we are on track to right now. I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

M.

Chris weighed in...

First off, tell Friedman to fuck off with his Generation Q. I've never approved of the whole naming-generations-by-letters trend, and Generation Q is clearly the most retarded denomination yet.

Second of all, To Friedman: don't tell me about my generation, because you have no idea. Honestly, how can anyone with that mustache expect to understand us?

So let me tell you about my generation.

We are smart enough to recognize the injustices of the world and but we are too insecure to do anything about it. Given the option to attend a political protest, we will almost always prefer to go to the gym.

This is largely capitalism's fault. Most of the developed world is capitalist, but few countries are as extreme in their capitalism as the United States. The individual is heightened to godliness and hedonism is the greatest value of our society. This is why people like Paris Hilton have become the poster children of our country--they live this ideal to the fullest and we love them for it.

Melinda said that capitalism is a system that fulfills consumers' needs, but this is patently untrue. The greatest fallacy of modern economics is that the market responds to demand. That ceased to be the case decades ago when advertising became a normal part of our everyday lives. Never in history has there been a generation that is so constantly bombarded by advertising, and never has the science of advertising been so perfected.

And one of the most effective techniques in advertising is to make the potential consumer feel as though something is missing from their life, or that they themselves are somehow lacking. This--as it turns out--is incredibly easy.

Our parents' generation contributed in their own way. While the sexual revolution brought a lot of positive changes (and lord knows we all owe a fair amount of orgasms to the movement) the move towards a 'sexual free market' has not been an easy one. Obviously, it contributes to the hedonism ideal mentioned above. But in addition, the new sense of sexual competition combined with the perceived norms fed to us by Madison Avenue has led to surges in phenomenon like anorexia in girls and swagger-culture in boys. Overall, we are an incredibly insecure generation.

We are also very accustomed to instant satisfaction. The internet makes so many things so easy, that we forget how to operate outside of it. If we can talk to our friends, read the newspaper, do our shopping and even get our sexual gratification all from the comfort of our computer chair, why shouldn't we get our dose of political indignation the same way? Even if that angry post on your blog doesn't have the same impact as a political rally, it sure is a quicker fix.

And the quick fix is our generation's calling card. And I don't mean 'fix' as in 'a solution to a problem.' I mean 'fix' the way drug-addicts use it. We scratch our itch for political protest by screaming unheard into the vacuum of the internet. We get our fix of social contact and camaraderie by expanding our network on Facebook. We squash the guilt of our own hedonistic consumerism by buying organic, buying vegetarian, buying 'green,' without ever realizing that these are all just different products that are packaged and sold to us. The 'organic' or 'green' label is just another Prada bag, helping consumers overcome their insecurities. (To quote Cat and Girl: "Your ideals are a luxury!")

And here is the real tragedy and the greatest failing of my generation: We have pretty much bought the line that they've sold us. We generally believe that the systems in place are not only impossible to overthrow, but also that it is objectively better than any other possible option. The result is that instead of fighting for drastic change, we murmur about small change within the system. This is problematic for 2 reasons:

One- it's hard to get real passionate about small changes. You can't build a rallying cry around baby steps.

Two- almost never will any movement completely achieve all its goals. It is better to demand revolution and be rewarded with small change than to demand small change and get ignored.

So what is the prescription: For one, we need to utilize the tools we have, the internet being one of them. While the internet has an incredible power to isolate us from each other, and can be a dangerous surrogate for things like real interaction and true action, it is still a powerful tool. The important thing is to focus it for positive use. That means less signing up for the 'Support the Burmese monks' group on Facebook and more emails like this. It means taking the time to write a real message instead of simply posting a note on someone's Wall.

It also means remembering that their is no replacement for real contact. We need to see each others' eyes. We need to feel each others' breathing. To hear the pounding of marching feet around us. To sing shared songs--of protest, of joy, of sadness it doesn't matter. There is a true worth in all of that, and that camaraderie and real contact is what shows us the strength of our numbers, the conviction of our cause. It breaks down the fragmentation and the isolation of a sensory overload society and reminds us of something more real than the perfect people in the magazines and the televisions.

Finally, we must be uncompromising in our demands. Civil rights protesters didn't make waves by asking for improvements in segregated schools. Instead, they stared the injustices of the system in the face and demanded a completely new system. We would do well to follow in their footsteps.

Not trying to cause a big sensation,
Chris

There are more comments on the way (from what I heard, Brigit's preparing a whopper!) but I wanted to put everything down in chronological order, so I don't lose track of the on-going conversation or the way it has evolved. Anyone else who may have opinions - please PLEASE e-mail them to me at melinda.gilbert@gmail.com - I don't even care if I know you. If you're part of our generation especially, let your voice be heard. Thanks!