This won the best short documentary at the Tribeca film festival a few years ago. It is about Milton Rogovin, a photographer who lived in the Buffalo area. He was called from Huac, his name and reputation were destroyed, and he lost his business as a result. He started taking pictures, and created a fabulous photo history of some neighborhoods in Buffalo.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Is Keith Olbermann Right? Is "Hate Speech" The Problem?
Last night Keith Olbermann had a special comment, his second about the Arizona shootings. In the first one, right after the shootings, he apparently called on politicians, the media, and all of us, to renounce language or communication which might be interpreted as calling for violence. He referred specifically to Sarah Palin's directive to her followers that they don't retreat, reload; her rifle-sights poster showing Democrats as the prey, apparently to be hunted down and eliminated; to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's constant hysteria; to many politicians and their apparent intent to lie, mislead, deceive, convince the public that something false is true, and that there is a crisis, and some member of the public must stand up and apparently save the country by resorting to violence.
We all know this type of communication is rather constant from the right-wing. We all feel threatened by it. But is the solution less speech, or more?
We have freedom of speech in this country that allows people to speak openly, regardless of how stupid they area. Our media has been largely taken over by the right-wing which uses it as a neo-nazi propaganda network to spread fascism and terrorize the public. We all know that.
But is the answer less speech, or more?
We have no evidence that the Arizona shooter was influenced in any way by the media or by any politician's communications. His acts could have been simply the deranged conduct of a mentally disturbed person, the same type of thing we see from the assassination of celebrities like John Lennon: not political, but the result of an obsession and mental defect.
Since we have no evidence that the conduct of the Arizona shooter was caused by speech, then why would we use that shooting as an occasion to propose restricting speech?
I see that somebody attended a forum in which there was to be a discussion of the Arizona shooting, and this man in the audience stood up and screamed at someone on stage: "You're dead. You're dead." He was arrested. I don't think he should have been. It's a volatile subject matter, highly emotional. But I would not see those comments as being a real threat to commit an act of violence, but rather simply an emotional response to a highly-charged environment.
Should we authorize or encourage the police to arrest citizens for being stupid, or emotional? Should speech by itself be sufficient to warrant arrest and punishment? Generally, no.
Besides, this member of the audience didn't kill anyone. Isn't it more likely that common people, working people will be arrested and punished for protesting against the government, than it is likely that the powerful media personalities or the politicians will be arrested for their speech? Of course it is.
I think Olbermann got it wrong this time. The problem in Arizona is apparently that somebody who was mentally ill was nonetheless able to get automatic weapons. Shouldn't background checks include a requirement that somebody go out and interview the parents, spouses, neighbors, co-workers, teachers, fellow students of the person trying to buy the weapon, and require the persons interviewed to sign a statement under penalty of perjury saying that they have never seen the person act erratically or be drunk or drugged or threaten anyone. Is there any legitimate reason for any civilian to own an automatic weapon, under any circumstances, and why aren't they banned? Is there some reason we cannot err on the side of caution? Well yes, actually, it's the NRA which pays enormous bribes to our politicians to stop them from passing stricter background check requirements on gun dealers, and to stop them from keeping in place the assault weapons ban that we used to have.
Honestly, the problem in Arizona isn't speech, it's the unfortunate proliferation of guns and specifically of automatic weapons, and the availability even to the obviously disturbed people in our society.
As for the right-wing threats, the Democrats in national office act as if their only job is to solicit bribes from foreign countries and multinational corporations. How about if they declare one day a week that will be a Bribe-Free day, and they spend it going out to the public and speaking. More speech, not less.
Remember when the teabaggers were out brandishing weapons to intimidate their neighbors and prevent open discussion about proposed healthcare reforms? Every single Democratic politician should have been attending those hearings and directing the police in advance to arrest anybody who brandished a weapon -- waved it at anyone else in the crowd in a manner intended to intimidate. Personally I would have put the gun people in a cage, far away from the meeting, because their only purpose for being there was to terrorize their neighbors. But the Democrats should been out in force, openly speaking, confronting the lunatics, and standing up and for and beside their supporters. Instead, they remained mum, back in D.C. negotiating the exact amount of bribes to be paid by the AMA and the insurance industry for the Democrats failure to pass a non-profit option for the citizens.
We need more speech, not less. Anybody threatens violence, the response should be an overwhelming number of opponents showing up and getting in the face of those promoting the threats. Harass them for a change, go to their houses and schools and place of work with picket signs saying they are a threat and danger to the community, that they are terrorizing their neighbors. Most of these people are cowards, and if somebody got up in their face, they'd likely stop doing it.
I think Olbermann got it wrong. The problem is not speech, even "hate" speech. We need more speech, from the people who are supposed to be on our side. But the real problem is guns, particularly automatic "assault" weapons which serve no legitimate purpose except to kill other people. Maybe we could ask our politicians to start speaking out agains the proliferation of guns. Let's demand that our politicians stop taking money from the NRA, and start passing strict background checks, and a ban on automatic weapons. More speech, less guns.
We all know this type of communication is rather constant from the right-wing. We all feel threatened by it. But is the solution less speech, or more?
We have freedom of speech in this country that allows people to speak openly, regardless of how stupid they area. Our media has been largely taken over by the right-wing which uses it as a neo-nazi propaganda network to spread fascism and terrorize the public. We all know that.
But is the answer less speech, or more?
We have no evidence that the Arizona shooter was influenced in any way by the media or by any politician's communications. His acts could have been simply the deranged conduct of a mentally disturbed person, the same type of thing we see from the assassination of celebrities like John Lennon: not political, but the result of an obsession and mental defect.
Since we have no evidence that the conduct of the Arizona shooter was caused by speech, then why would we use that shooting as an occasion to propose restricting speech?
I see that somebody attended a forum in which there was to be a discussion of the Arizona shooting, and this man in the audience stood up and screamed at someone on stage: "You're dead. You're dead." He was arrested. I don't think he should have been. It's a volatile subject matter, highly emotional. But I would not see those comments as being a real threat to commit an act of violence, but rather simply an emotional response to a highly-charged environment.
Should we authorize or encourage the police to arrest citizens for being stupid, or emotional? Should speech by itself be sufficient to warrant arrest and punishment? Generally, no.
Besides, this member of the audience didn't kill anyone. Isn't it more likely that common people, working people will be arrested and punished for protesting against the government, than it is likely that the powerful media personalities or the politicians will be arrested for their speech? Of course it is.
I think Olbermann got it wrong this time. The problem in Arizona is apparently that somebody who was mentally ill was nonetheless able to get automatic weapons. Shouldn't background checks include a requirement that somebody go out and interview the parents, spouses, neighbors, co-workers, teachers, fellow students of the person trying to buy the weapon, and require the persons interviewed to sign a statement under penalty of perjury saying that they have never seen the person act erratically or be drunk or drugged or threaten anyone. Is there any legitimate reason for any civilian to own an automatic weapon, under any circumstances, and why aren't they banned? Is there some reason we cannot err on the side of caution? Well yes, actually, it's the NRA which pays enormous bribes to our politicians to stop them from passing stricter background check requirements on gun dealers, and to stop them from keeping in place the assault weapons ban that we used to have.
Honestly, the problem in Arizona isn't speech, it's the unfortunate proliferation of guns and specifically of automatic weapons, and the availability even to the obviously disturbed people in our society.
As for the right-wing threats, the Democrats in national office act as if their only job is to solicit bribes from foreign countries and multinational corporations. How about if they declare one day a week that will be a Bribe-Free day, and they spend it going out to the public and speaking. More speech, not less.
Remember when the teabaggers were out brandishing weapons to intimidate their neighbors and prevent open discussion about proposed healthcare reforms? Every single Democratic politician should have been attending those hearings and directing the police in advance to arrest anybody who brandished a weapon -- waved it at anyone else in the crowd in a manner intended to intimidate. Personally I would have put the gun people in a cage, far away from the meeting, because their only purpose for being there was to terrorize their neighbors. But the Democrats should been out in force, openly speaking, confronting the lunatics, and standing up and for and beside their supporters. Instead, they remained mum, back in D.C. negotiating the exact amount of bribes to be paid by the AMA and the insurance industry for the Democrats failure to pass a non-profit option for the citizens.
We need more speech, not less. Anybody threatens violence, the response should be an overwhelming number of opponents showing up and getting in the face of those promoting the threats. Harass them for a change, go to their houses and schools and place of work with picket signs saying they are a threat and danger to the community, that they are terrorizing their neighbors. Most of these people are cowards, and if somebody got up in their face, they'd likely stop doing it.
I think Olbermann got it wrong. The problem is not speech, even "hate" speech. We need more speech, from the people who are supposed to be on our side. But the real problem is guns, particularly automatic "assault" weapons which serve no legitimate purpose except to kill other people. Maybe we could ask our politicians to start speaking out agains the proliferation of guns. Let's demand that our politicians stop taking money from the NRA, and start passing strict background checks, and a ban on automatic weapons. More speech, less guns.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The New Dark Ages.
.
Angry mobs are roaming the streets of New York City threatening and attacking a group that plans to use a building as a community center for American Muslims. The media is promoting this mob attack. The politicians are either silent, refusing to defend the American citizens who are being subject to the mob violence, or they speak out against the American citizens and talk about them like they have no rights in this country. Or some even just say flat out that the Muslims should go somewhere else. It's like a replay of the white flight hysteria in this country when the courts began ruling that a home seller could not refuse to sell to a black family. "They should go somewhere else," the angry white mobs screamed.
What is the lesson here? Both major political parties and all wings of them, from left to right, and the entire government (with the noted exception of President Obama) demand that an American citizen must swear an oath of allegiance to Christianity or its cousin religion Judaism. Those are the only two religions that are acceptable. Islam don't make the cut. It's a "foreign" religion. "Our" national religion is either christianity or Judaism.
Why would the government force Americans to become Christians as a condition to enjoying the rights of a citizen? Such as the right to build a community center, and to associate with others at that center? Those rights are being denied to one group of Americans, which consists of people who have not yet taken the oath to Christianity or Judiasm.
We have entered a new period of the dark ages. Our government is acting as the destructive force. We did not need invaders from other countries to tear down our nation and burn the books, destroy learning, because our government is doing it on behalf of multinational corporations. They have already taken away many of our jobs and sent them to foreign countries, an act which should land them all in prison. They have manipulated the stock market and created asset bubbles and crashes, repeatedly, to the point that they have succeeded in stealing much of the wealth and savings, retirement, college funds, of most people in this country. They are in the process of eliminating Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, and public education.
They are firing teachers and chaining children to tables inside cubicles where they will sit and look at a computer screen presumably filled with images created by monsters who seek to devour the world like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, the Bush Boys, Rupert Murdoch and his fanatical Muslim Saudi prince financier. They are eliminating all rights of women to control their own reproductive decisions, and have struck down laws intended to give women equal rights in the nation. Now they are forbidding scientists from doing research to try to cure diseases, ruling that only "Christian" scientists can do faith-based research, apparently praying for a cure.
Most kids watch hours of TV every day, inside and outside of school. Most adults, if being honest, would list "watch TV" when asked what they do in their free time. What is the purpose of promoting images flashed on a screen to an audience, instead of promoting reading, writing, discussion, and literacy? That's what's going on in this country, in and out of the schools. Don't read or write, just show movies, make movies. What is the effect on the brain of only being exposed to images? A failure to learn the skill of critical thinking. Images only promote acceptance: it is, I see it. It's a limited form of thinking. Reading and writing requires the use of an entirely different part of the brain which requires us to weigh information, sort through, decide what is relevant, what is truthful or not, make decisions, put together an idea, then learn going forward whether our process was flawed or was solid. Watching images and listening to noise, like on TV, not only does not teach critical thinking, it actually numbs the part of the brain that would do it. Perhaps that part atrophies over time.
Why would our government and both political parties try to make us stupid? Easier to manipulate. What about the demand that all citizens must swear allegiance to Christianity or Judaism as a condition to enjoying basic civil rights? What's the purpose of that? How does that fit into this picture?
Religion promotes a magical and mythical way of looking at the world, childlike, a belief that we individuals have no power, have no right to try to figure out what is right or wrong, have no ability to change anything because God is in charge, and have no responsibility to ever make an effort. Remember that airplane in Pennsylvania (which some say was shot down by the U.S.) which crashed in a field on 9/11? Some people said that a group of passengers decided to rush the cockpit and try to overpower the hijackers because they realized (they'd gotten the news by telephone) that if they didn't do that, they all would die. But the reports also said another group of passengers sat in the back, held hands and prayed. It was so clear to me that the praying group reacted to the threat of their own death in exactly the way the killers wanted: they passively sat and did nothing, they made no effort at all to save themselves. Lambs to the slaughter. The other group, on the other hand, made an emergency plan and tried to do something to save themselves. Rational-based thought and action.
I think our government is conditionining the civil rights of people on citizens taking an oath of allegiance to Christianity or Judaism because they want us to be childlike, to believe in myths and fables, to believe we have no ability to think rationally or to understand the world, no right to try to affect it because, after all, God is in charge. God must want those politicians robbing us blind and destroying our children's future. We can't understand, because God has a plan.
I'll tell you what. I've got my own plans, and they do not include myths, magic thinking, of fables. I don't think God has anything to do with what is being done to our country, and the people who promote that view are the worst of all. It's like the priest fondling a little boy's penis and telling the boy that God wants him to do this. It's the grossest misuse of religion to promote greed, disloyalty, betrayal, even murder. George W. Bush claimed that God wanted him to kill a million Iraqis for no reason at all. And the churches in this country celebrated this monster, backed his play, enthusaistically got behind the idea of slaughtering a million human beings. That is a good description of where magical, mythical thinking will get you: dead.
People are so worried about having to carry a national ID card. They should be worried about having to carry a church membership card in order to be free to travel or live their lives, or work, or go to school. Because the people running this country are using religion to destroy us. As for me, when I look in the air I imagine drones falling on mothers and babies, not angels or virgin births.
Angry mobs are roaming the streets of New York City threatening and attacking a group that plans to use a building as a community center for American Muslims. The media is promoting this mob attack. The politicians are either silent, refusing to defend the American citizens who are being subject to the mob violence, or they speak out against the American citizens and talk about them like they have no rights in this country. Or some even just say flat out that the Muslims should go somewhere else. It's like a replay of the white flight hysteria in this country when the courts began ruling that a home seller could not refuse to sell to a black family. "They should go somewhere else," the angry white mobs screamed.
What is the lesson here? Both major political parties and all wings of them, from left to right, and the entire government (with the noted exception of President Obama) demand that an American citizen must swear an oath of allegiance to Christianity or its cousin religion Judaism. Those are the only two religions that are acceptable. Islam don't make the cut. It's a "foreign" religion. "Our" national religion is either christianity or Judaism.
Why would the government force Americans to become Christians as a condition to enjoying the rights of a citizen? Such as the right to build a community center, and to associate with others at that center? Those rights are being denied to one group of Americans, which consists of people who have not yet taken the oath to Christianity or Judiasm.
We have entered a new period of the dark ages. Our government is acting as the destructive force. We did not need invaders from other countries to tear down our nation and burn the books, destroy learning, because our government is doing it on behalf of multinational corporations. They have already taken away many of our jobs and sent them to foreign countries, an act which should land them all in prison. They have manipulated the stock market and created asset bubbles and crashes, repeatedly, to the point that they have succeeded in stealing much of the wealth and savings, retirement, college funds, of most people in this country. They are in the process of eliminating Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, and public education.
They are firing teachers and chaining children to tables inside cubicles where they will sit and look at a computer screen presumably filled with images created by monsters who seek to devour the world like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, the Bush Boys, Rupert Murdoch and his fanatical Muslim Saudi prince financier. They are eliminating all rights of women to control their own reproductive decisions, and have struck down laws intended to give women equal rights in the nation. Now they are forbidding scientists from doing research to try to cure diseases, ruling that only "Christian" scientists can do faith-based research, apparently praying for a cure.
Most kids watch hours of TV every day, inside and outside of school. Most adults, if being honest, would list "watch TV" when asked what they do in their free time. What is the purpose of promoting images flashed on a screen to an audience, instead of promoting reading, writing, discussion, and literacy? That's what's going on in this country, in and out of the schools. Don't read or write, just show movies, make movies. What is the effect on the brain of only being exposed to images? A failure to learn the skill of critical thinking. Images only promote acceptance: it is, I see it. It's a limited form of thinking. Reading and writing requires the use of an entirely different part of the brain which requires us to weigh information, sort through, decide what is relevant, what is truthful or not, make decisions, put together an idea, then learn going forward whether our process was flawed or was solid. Watching images and listening to noise, like on TV, not only does not teach critical thinking, it actually numbs the part of the brain that would do it. Perhaps that part atrophies over time.
Why would our government and both political parties try to make us stupid? Easier to manipulate. What about the demand that all citizens must swear allegiance to Christianity or Judaism as a condition to enjoying basic civil rights? What's the purpose of that? How does that fit into this picture?
Religion promotes a magical and mythical way of looking at the world, childlike, a belief that we individuals have no power, have no right to try to figure out what is right or wrong, have no ability to change anything because God is in charge, and have no responsibility to ever make an effort. Remember that airplane in Pennsylvania (which some say was shot down by the U.S.) which crashed in a field on 9/11? Some people said that a group of passengers decided to rush the cockpit and try to overpower the hijackers because they realized (they'd gotten the news by telephone) that if they didn't do that, they all would die. But the reports also said another group of passengers sat in the back, held hands and prayed. It was so clear to me that the praying group reacted to the threat of their own death in exactly the way the killers wanted: they passively sat and did nothing, they made no effort at all to save themselves. Lambs to the slaughter. The other group, on the other hand, made an emergency plan and tried to do something to save themselves. Rational-based thought and action.
I think our government is conditionining the civil rights of people on citizens taking an oath of allegiance to Christianity or Judaism because they want us to be childlike, to believe in myths and fables, to believe we have no ability to think rationally or to understand the world, no right to try to affect it because, after all, God is in charge. God must want those politicians robbing us blind and destroying our children's future. We can't understand, because God has a plan.
I'll tell you what. I've got my own plans, and they do not include myths, magic thinking, of fables. I don't think God has anything to do with what is being done to our country, and the people who promote that view are the worst of all. It's like the priest fondling a little boy's penis and telling the boy that God wants him to do this. It's the grossest misuse of religion to promote greed, disloyalty, betrayal, even murder. George W. Bush claimed that God wanted him to kill a million Iraqis for no reason at all. And the churches in this country celebrated this monster, backed his play, enthusaistically got behind the idea of slaughtering a million human beings. That is a good description of where magical, mythical thinking will get you: dead.
People are so worried about having to carry a national ID card. They should be worried about having to carry a church membership card in order to be free to travel or live their lives, or work, or go to school. Because the people running this country are using religion to destroy us. As for me, when I look in the air I imagine drones falling on mothers and babies, not angels or virgin births.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Abbey Lincoln (1930-2010), American Jazz Legend.
.
(Sophisticated Lady)
Abbey Lincoln (1930-2010) died last Saturday in New York City at the age of 80. She was and is a legendary jazz vocalist, songwriter and actress. She was particularly influenced in her singing by Billie Holiday, Sarah Vaughan, and Dinah Washington.
(Exactly Like You)
Abbey Lincoln worked in different parts of the country until she recorded her first album in 1956, then moved to New York City and worked at the Village Vanguard. While singing at the Vanguard, Abbey Lincoln met Max Roach who was a jazz drummer and composer. The two later married.
Lincoln and Roach worked together on various projects during the 1950s and 1960s, including the album "We Insist! Max Roach's Freedom Suite," which was released in 1960, at the height of the civil rights struggle.
Lincoln, Roach, and other well-known jazz musicians took up the cause of civil rights in the U.S. at a time of both heroic struggle by mass movements, and increasing violence by the racist right-wing. These jazz musicians performed at benefits and fundraisers for groups such as the NAACP, CORE, and other civil rights organizations and used their influence in speaking out in support of the demand for equal rights for black citizens.
"When everything is finished in a world, the people go to look for what the artists leave. It is the only thing that we have really in this world -- is an ability to express ourselves and say 'I was here.'" Abbey Lincoln.
Lincoln also was an actress, and got roles in such movies as "Nothing But A Man," and "For Love Of Ivy."
For more, see: http://www.npr.org/programs/jazzprofiles/archive/lincoln.html
(Sophisticated Lady)
Monday, August 16, 2010
Woodstock: August 15-18, 1969. A Celebration Of Freedom, Peace, and Love.
.
In August of 1969, a music festival was scheduled to take place on some open land, rented from a farmer, near the town of Woodstock in upstate New York. Outdoor music festivals were relatively common at the time, but the promoters did plan to draw a large crowd because of the terrific line-up of performers they had scheduled.
As it turns out, the number of young people who decided to go to this music festival grossly exceeded what had been planned. Hundreds of thousands of young people traveled to upstate New York for that three-day festival in brightly-colored vans, some hitchhiking, all planning to celebrate with other young people from around the country and listen to some good music. The rumor has it that the New York State primary freeway was shut down for a time because of the enormous number of vehicles headed to Woodstock. Eventually a half a million people ended up at the Woodstock Festival.
The young people who attended, cheered, celebrated Woodstock soon became known as the Woodstock Generation. They have been vilified, demeaned, ridiculed by the right-wing fascists who took control of this country under Reagan and kept control through two Bushes and one Clinton. But the Woodstock Generation was possibly the smartest generation in this country for decades. Had their ideas and views been followed, we would undoubtedly have a better country and more peaceful and humane world.
Melanie:
Among the performers at the Woodstock Festival were the following:
Richie Havens
Ravi Shankar
Melanie
Arlo Guthrie
Joan Baez
Country Joe McDonald
John Sebastian
Santana
Canned Heat
Grateful Dead
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Janis Joplin
Sly & the Family Stone
The Who
Jefferson Airplane
Joe Cocker
Country Joe and the Fish
Ten Years After
The Band
Blood Sweat & Tears
Johnny Winter
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Paul Butterfield Blues Band
Sha-Na-Na
Jimi Hendrix
Nice shot of the crowd:
The Woodstock Generation, although consisting of a loose connection of young and not always so young people, embraced certain beliefs and principles about life which at the time were considered revolutionary, and which terrified the ruling powers in this country. Here are just a few of the principles of the Woodstock Generation.
1. Stop Polluting The Environment. Rachel Carson brought the nation's attention to this issue in her book "The Silent Spring," and the Woodstock Generation was the first to demand that changes be made. Stop polluting the air and water. Simple concepts, but at that time the people who ran this country tried to cover up the truth. How much of the cancer in this country, and disease in the world, is the direct result of corporations dumping chemicals and poison in the earth and water?
2. Live Simply. Don't spend your life chasing more or competing with the neighbors. Consume less and contribute more. Help your neighbors. Don't hoard. Don't take more than you need.
3. Local Food Control. Eat simply. Eat locally-grown produce. Don't buy the corporate-produced food which is packaged or sprayed with poison. Take back control of food. And help people in other countries do the same.
4. Population Control. The churches oppose this, and encourage their members to breed as if there was no limit to our resources. But the fact is all people should be limited to 1/2 of a child. After that, get yourself fixed. We should cut the world's population in half immediately, and possibly cut it by another half after that. We are well on the way to destroying every living plant, all food stuff, and every single animal or fish in the world, because of gross and excessive and obscene overpopulation. And in the meantime, the Republicans on TV celebrate the stupid Americans who have 12 kids, or 18 kids, and act like this is all good fun. It's suicide. It's also likely to destroy the entire earth and all living things. If the demands of the Woodstock Generation for population control had been followed, we probably would not be facing the extinction of so many animals on this earth.
5. End All Wars. The Woodstock Generation was against the war in Vietnam. But they were also against all wars, preferring the idea of creating strong international organizations with the authority to send in peacekeeping troops to protect civilians. Possibly mandatory mediation of disputes. War consists of one macho male sending the young men from his country into another country to kill the women and children. That's always what it comes down to. Killing children and babies is wrong. We have the sophistication and wealth to end war for all time, if we wanted to. If this principle had been adopted, think of the millions of lives that might have been saved.
(Burning a draft card, refusing to go to Vietnam).
6. De-Criminalize Drugs. Who came up with the stupid idea that we should use the military to fight against addiction? The U.S. has troops all over Central and South America propping up dictators and despots, providing security for U.S. corporations that are stealing resources from those countries. And this military occupation is done under the guise of a "war on drugs." Nonsense. There is no war on drugs. Drug addiction is a medical condition and should be treated as such. If this idea had been adopted, our country could have saved billions of dollars that has been wasted on guns and wars used against poor people in other countries. And our massive prison population includes way too many young non-white people whose only crime is that they liked to get high.
7. End Racism. This went way beyond the minimal rights acquired during the 1950s civil rights movement. The Woodstock Generation promoted the idea that all people were equal, were the same, and should and must live together in peace. This included the idea that black and white or hispanic or Asian people should date, marry, form families without regard to racial or ethnic identities. This was an idea that was considered shocking to much of the country at that time.
(Huey P. Newton, Black Panther Party. The members of the Black Panther Party, standing in defense of their communities, were framed, imprisoned, assassinated, and exterminated by an illegal program of the U.S. government known as Cointelpro.)
8. Equality For Women. Again, this was a radical concept. Through the 1950s and early 1960s, women had to belong to some man, provide unpaid slave labor for life to a man and to however many children her body turned out, in order to have a place in society. Women had few opportunities to work or earn a living, often had no birth control, had no legal rights to prevent their husbands from beating them. Divorced women were considered whores and single women past a relatively young age were considered spinsters, completely banished from the rest of society. No options for women. The Woodstock Generation promoted the idea that all people, regardless of gender or race, are equal, and should have equal opportunities.
(Angela Davis)
9. Create And Nourish Community. It had already become apparent that the single family suburban neighborhood was destroying community. Imagine people living in cubicles, not even knowing their neighbors, working in cubicles and being prohibited from even speaking with their co-workers. I worked on a lawsuit once in which a worker was fired by a big retailer which claimed she was guilty of "theft." Based on that charge of criminal behavior, the worker was even denied unemployment compensation. But it turns out that the only "crime" the employee had committed was that she spoke with a co-worker during working hours, asked how her week-end went. The company's employee handbook said any conversations among co-workers unrelated to work were considered to be "theft" of company time. People have no community, live in isolation, and they therefore have no power. How can people organize to protect their own rights or their community when they don't even know who lives right down the street?
(Grateful Dead)
10. No Nukes. If only this idea had been pursued at the time, think how different the world might be today. Because the right-wing took control of our country, they promoted the widespread distribution of nuclear weapons to our "friends," which now means we live every day within minutes of having the entire world annihilated by some moron, either in a cave or in a government office.
11. Recycle. Stop Consuming. Stop filling the ocean and the earth with crap. Re-use. The U.S. corporations hate the idea of people using their own independent judgment to decide that they will not spend their lives buying the crap sold to them by the corporations.
12. Free Love. It is not the place of the government or the "community" to dictate to other adults when they may have sex, with whom, or in what manner. It is also not the place of the government or the community to dictate to other adults whether they may use birth control (as late as the 1960s, some states still made birth control illegal) or whether, or when to have children.
13. Workers Rights. The Woodstock Generation marched and demonstrated and boycotted along with the United Farm Workers to demand that all workers get a decent paycheck, have safe working conditions, healthcare, decent pensions, vacations and holidays.
14. Freedom And Independence For Other Nations. The Woodstock Generation promoted the view that all people are entitled to be free and independent, to run their own countries without interference from other nations. If only these views had been adopted, how different the world would be today.
(Che Guevara, hero of the Cuban revolution.)
In this 40th anniversary of Woodstock, the right-wing fascists who control the media and the Republican party will undoubtedly take this opportunity to ridicule everyone who was part of the Woodstock Generation, and to reaffirm the concept that "real" Americans love war, guns and violence, and hate their neighbors. The Republicans are trying to create a fascist nation, and the Democrats aren't doing much to stop them. The fact is that the Woodstock Generation consisted of true patriots, people who loved this country and democracy, and who were creative and innovative in trying to find new ways for all of us to live in peace in this world. Make Love Not War. No Nukes. Peace.
The Who:
In addition to having important and creative ideas about how to change society and the world to be cooperative instead of combative, there was also a tremendous flourishing of music, film, and fine arts during this time. The idea was that art became fun, a part of people's lives rather than something to be shut away inside museums and judged by a small panel of upper-class white men as to whether the art did or did not have merit. Young people all over the country decided for themselves whether they liked some art and, if they did, collected the reprints and posters and tacked them up all over their rooms. People's art, as it were, shown throughout this post.
During the entire history of the U.S., under or after slavery, it had always been understood that black and white people should live completely separate lives. In the 1950s, blacks spent years demonstrating and marching for such minimal rights as the right to sit down on a public bus, the right to buy food in a restaurant, the right to vote, the right to not be murdered by white men. Black people were often legally prohibited from buying homes other than in "black" neighborhoods, their children were legally prohibited from attending schools with white children, and they were legally prohibited from marrying a white person. Even in states which did not have those laws, segregation was strictly upheld in all classes of society.
The Woodstock Generation took enormous leaps forward on the issue of race, and demanded that all racism, all segregation be ended. This was a radical position at the time. The Woodstock Generation had a view that all people were equal and should live together in one community, in peace. Not that this was necessarily successfully implemented, but just the fact that these people embraced that idea was horrifying to the white men who ran this country.
For example, Jimi Hendrix performed at Woodstock to wild acclaim. Just a short time later, by the 1980s, under the regime of Ronald Reagan and the white boys who re-took control of our country, a black performer like Michael Jackson had to physically alter his appearance to make himself look white and female, in order to be "acceptable" to be presented to a white audience. Jimi Hendrix didn't appear white or female. He was a sexy black man, publicly celebrating his rejection of the stereotypes that confined previous generations, openly expressing his anti-war views and politics, something which had always been forbidden for black men in this country, and he was worshipped by many of the young white people who made up the Woodstock Generation.
In August of 1969, a music festival was scheduled to take place on some open land, rented from a farmer, near the town of Woodstock in upstate New York. Outdoor music festivals were relatively common at the time, but the promoters did plan to draw a large crowd because of the terrific line-up of performers they had scheduled.
As it turns out, the number of young people who decided to go to this music festival grossly exceeded what had been planned. Hundreds of thousands of young people traveled to upstate New York for that three-day festival in brightly-colored vans, some hitchhiking, all planning to celebrate with other young people from around the country and listen to some good music. The rumor has it that the New York State primary freeway was shut down for a time because of the enormous number of vehicles headed to Woodstock. Eventually a half a million people ended up at the Woodstock Festival.
The young people who attended, cheered, celebrated Woodstock soon became known as the Woodstock Generation. They have been vilified, demeaned, ridiculed by the right-wing fascists who took control of this country under Reagan and kept control through two Bushes and one Clinton. But the Woodstock Generation was possibly the smartest generation in this country for decades. Had their ideas and views been followed, we would undoubtedly have a better country and more peaceful and humane world.
Melanie:
Among the performers at the Woodstock Festival were the following:
Richie Havens
Ravi Shankar
Melanie
Arlo Guthrie
Joan Baez
Country Joe McDonald
John Sebastian
Santana
Canned Heat
Grateful Dead
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Janis Joplin
Sly & the Family Stone
The Who
Jefferson Airplane
Joe Cocker
Country Joe and the Fish
Ten Years After
The Band
Blood Sweat & Tears
Johnny Winter
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Paul Butterfield Blues Band
Sha-Na-Na
Jimi Hendrix
Nice shot of the crowd:
The Woodstock Generation, although consisting of a loose connection of young and not always so young people, embraced certain beliefs and principles about life which at the time were considered revolutionary, and which terrified the ruling powers in this country. Here are just a few of the principles of the Woodstock Generation.
1. Stop Polluting The Environment. Rachel Carson brought the nation's attention to this issue in her book "The Silent Spring," and the Woodstock Generation was the first to demand that changes be made. Stop polluting the air and water. Simple concepts, but at that time the people who ran this country tried to cover up the truth. How much of the cancer in this country, and disease in the world, is the direct result of corporations dumping chemicals and poison in the earth and water?
2. Live Simply. Don't spend your life chasing more or competing with the neighbors. Consume less and contribute more. Help your neighbors. Don't hoard. Don't take more than you need.
3. Local Food Control. Eat simply. Eat locally-grown produce. Don't buy the corporate-produced food which is packaged or sprayed with poison. Take back control of food. And help people in other countries do the same.
4. Population Control. The churches oppose this, and encourage their members to breed as if there was no limit to our resources. But the fact is all people should be limited to 1/2 of a child. After that, get yourself fixed. We should cut the world's population in half immediately, and possibly cut it by another half after that. We are well on the way to destroying every living plant, all food stuff, and every single animal or fish in the world, because of gross and excessive and obscene overpopulation. And in the meantime, the Republicans on TV celebrate the stupid Americans who have 12 kids, or 18 kids, and act like this is all good fun. It's suicide. It's also likely to destroy the entire earth and all living things. If the demands of the Woodstock Generation for population control had been followed, we probably would not be facing the extinction of so many animals on this earth.
5. End All Wars. The Woodstock Generation was against the war in Vietnam. But they were also against all wars, preferring the idea of creating strong international organizations with the authority to send in peacekeeping troops to protect civilians. Possibly mandatory mediation of disputes. War consists of one macho male sending the young men from his country into another country to kill the women and children. That's always what it comes down to. Killing children and babies is wrong. We have the sophistication and wealth to end war for all time, if we wanted to. If this principle had been adopted, think of the millions of lives that might have been saved.
(Burning a draft card, refusing to go to Vietnam).6. De-Criminalize Drugs. Who came up with the stupid idea that we should use the military to fight against addiction? The U.S. has troops all over Central and South America propping up dictators and despots, providing security for U.S. corporations that are stealing resources from those countries. And this military occupation is done under the guise of a "war on drugs." Nonsense. There is no war on drugs. Drug addiction is a medical condition and should be treated as such. If this idea had been adopted, our country could have saved billions of dollars that has been wasted on guns and wars used against poor people in other countries. And our massive prison population includes way too many young non-white people whose only crime is that they liked to get high.
7. End Racism. This went way beyond the minimal rights acquired during the 1950s civil rights movement. The Woodstock Generation promoted the idea that all people were equal, were the same, and should and must live together in peace. This included the idea that black and white or hispanic or Asian people should date, marry, form families without regard to racial or ethnic identities. This was an idea that was considered shocking to much of the country at that time.
(Huey P. Newton, Black Panther Party. The members of the Black Panther Party, standing in defense of their communities, were framed, imprisoned, assassinated, and exterminated by an illegal program of the U.S. government known as Cointelpro.)8. Equality For Women. Again, this was a radical concept. Through the 1950s and early 1960s, women had to belong to some man, provide unpaid slave labor for life to a man and to however many children her body turned out, in order to have a place in society. Women had few opportunities to work or earn a living, often had no birth control, had no legal rights to prevent their husbands from beating them. Divorced women were considered whores and single women past a relatively young age were considered spinsters, completely banished from the rest of society. No options for women. The Woodstock Generation promoted the idea that all people, regardless of gender or race, are equal, and should have equal opportunities.
(Angela Davis)9. Create And Nourish Community. It had already become apparent that the single family suburban neighborhood was destroying community. Imagine people living in cubicles, not even knowing their neighbors, working in cubicles and being prohibited from even speaking with their co-workers. I worked on a lawsuit once in which a worker was fired by a big retailer which claimed she was guilty of "theft." Based on that charge of criminal behavior, the worker was even denied unemployment compensation. But it turns out that the only "crime" the employee had committed was that she spoke with a co-worker during working hours, asked how her week-end went. The company's employee handbook said any conversations among co-workers unrelated to work were considered to be "theft" of company time. People have no community, live in isolation, and they therefore have no power. How can people organize to protect their own rights or their community when they don't even know who lives right down the street?
(Grateful Dead)10. No Nukes. If only this idea had been pursued at the time, think how different the world might be today. Because the right-wing took control of our country, they promoted the widespread distribution of nuclear weapons to our "friends," which now means we live every day within minutes of having the entire world annihilated by some moron, either in a cave or in a government office.
11. Recycle. Stop Consuming. Stop filling the ocean and the earth with crap. Re-use. The U.S. corporations hate the idea of people using their own independent judgment to decide that they will not spend their lives buying the crap sold to them by the corporations.
12. Free Love. It is not the place of the government or the "community" to dictate to other adults when they may have sex, with whom, or in what manner. It is also not the place of the government or the community to dictate to other adults whether they may use birth control (as late as the 1960s, some states still made birth control illegal) or whether, or when to have children.
13. Workers Rights. The Woodstock Generation marched and demonstrated and boycotted along with the United Farm Workers to demand that all workers get a decent paycheck, have safe working conditions, healthcare, decent pensions, vacations and holidays.
14. Freedom And Independence For Other Nations. The Woodstock Generation promoted the view that all people are entitled to be free and independent, to run their own countries without interference from other nations. If only these views had been adopted, how different the world would be today.
(Che Guevara, hero of the Cuban revolution.)In this 40th anniversary of Woodstock, the right-wing fascists who control the media and the Republican party will undoubtedly take this opportunity to ridicule everyone who was part of the Woodstock Generation, and to reaffirm the concept that "real" Americans love war, guns and violence, and hate their neighbors. The Republicans are trying to create a fascist nation, and the Democrats aren't doing much to stop them. The fact is that the Woodstock Generation consisted of true patriots, people who loved this country and democracy, and who were creative and innovative in trying to find new ways for all of us to live in peace in this world. Make Love Not War. No Nukes. Peace.
The Who:
In addition to having important and creative ideas about how to change society and the world to be cooperative instead of combative, there was also a tremendous flourishing of music, film, and fine arts during this time. The idea was that art became fun, a part of people's lives rather than something to be shut away inside museums and judged by a small panel of upper-class white men as to whether the art did or did not have merit. Young people all over the country decided for themselves whether they liked some art and, if they did, collected the reprints and posters and tacked them up all over their rooms. People's art, as it were, shown throughout this post.
During the entire history of the U.S., under or after slavery, it had always been understood that black and white people should live completely separate lives. In the 1950s, blacks spent years demonstrating and marching for such minimal rights as the right to sit down on a public bus, the right to buy food in a restaurant, the right to vote, the right to not be murdered by white men. Black people were often legally prohibited from buying homes other than in "black" neighborhoods, their children were legally prohibited from attending schools with white children, and they were legally prohibited from marrying a white person. Even in states which did not have those laws, segregation was strictly upheld in all classes of society.The Woodstock Generation took enormous leaps forward on the issue of race, and demanded that all racism, all segregation be ended. This was a radical position at the time. The Woodstock Generation had a view that all people were equal and should live together in one community, in peace. Not that this was necessarily successfully implemented, but just the fact that these people embraced that idea was horrifying to the white men who ran this country.
For example, Jimi Hendrix performed at Woodstock to wild acclaim. Just a short time later, by the 1980s, under the regime of Ronald Reagan and the white boys who re-took control of our country, a black performer like Michael Jackson had to physically alter his appearance to make himself look white and female, in order to be "acceptable" to be presented to a white audience. Jimi Hendrix didn't appear white or female. He was a sexy black man, publicly celebrating his rejection of the stereotypes that confined previous generations, openly expressing his anti-war views and politics, something which had always been forbidden for black men in this country, and he was worshipped by many of the young white people who made up the Woodstock Generation.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Brooklyn Kickball: Community In Action.
.
We have lost community in most of this country. Community means something other than parallel dwellings inside which people sleep or observe electronic screens. Community means connection and involvement with all your neighbors -- old and young, married, divorced, single, widowed, black, white, hispanic, Asian -- all the religions -- all of it, having some interaction that is positive, getting to know each other or at least recognize each other.
But in Brooklyn, they've still got community. Community with a local flare, and lots of attitude.
Take Brooklyn kickball. What a riot. Started in 2003, the Brooklyn Kickball league now has over 30 teams that play in the league from April through October, usually on Sundays in McCarren Park in Brooklyn.
Here's the Brooklyn kickball league webpage with all the information. http://brooklynkickball.com/ Kickball, like the little kids play in school. Which means everybody can be on a team, pretty much, even if they're not some super athlete. And anybody who doesn't want to play can always come out to watch, hang out, eat, and cheer on their favorites.
The names of the teams are very clever: The Government Kick-backs; The Non-Committals; Brooklyn United; Never Scared; the Pony Boys; The Crucial Taunt; The Drinkers With A Kicking Problem. The players also have creative nicknames, such as Justin “Nipple” Taylor, Rob “Matzo” Lotzko, Lexi “Governor” Patterson, Autumn “Prison” Jorgensen, Tank “The Frank” Moylan, and Matt “Marquis De” Sadewitz.
They often have very creative costumes, too. Here are some team photos:
In addition to spending all day Sunday in McCarren Park from the spring through the fall, playing, watching the other teams, being a spectator, eating, drinking, laughing, hanging out, just getting outside and being part of it, the Brooklyn Kickball teams also sometimes have parties, dances, and other activities.
Like in all sports, there is a "commissioner" of kickball in Brooklyn, and there are sometimes conflicts between the players and the commissioner. It's just that the way in which these conflicts are discussed is a little different, a little more folksy in a Brooklyn kind of way, than the MBA/Harvard Law agents we're used to hearing when there is a dispute in professional (big money) sports in this country.
Here's how one such dispute between a Brooklyn kickballer Robert L. who played on a dominant team named Prison, and the Brooklyn kickball commissioner Kevin Dailey played out in the press:
"[F]ormer kickballer Robert L. confirms. 'I told [38-year-old Brooklyn Kickball commissioner] Kevin Dailey he was a fat fuck and to go sniff coke."
[Kickballer Robert L. continues]: "[Brooklyn Kickball] allows people to reinvent themselves... [Commissioner] Kevin Dailey is now the coolest guy on earth every sunday night to 32 teams with 10 or more people on it. And every person on every team is the coolest person who ever moved to Brooklyn."
[Kickballer Robert continues]: "I work out alot and have a typical "jock" build. So everyone skinny hipster is afraid of me ... and you have 120 pound boys who look like girls being scared and complaining about our team. ... [Commissioner] Kevin Daily hates me and my whole team!"
"For his part, Kickball Commissioner Kevin Daily wrote in a letter:"
"Despite all the bullshit swarming around me for the last couple of years, I'm still here. Not anonymous calls to the Parks Department, selective cutting and pasting, or Gawker.com will keep me away. Still standing. I have no reason to go. I've done a fucking excellent job...."
http://gawker.com/385873/a-rogue-williamsburg-kickballer-explains-it-all
We have lost community in most of this country. Community means something other than parallel dwellings inside which people sleep or observe electronic screens. Community means connection and involvement with all your neighbors -- old and young, married, divorced, single, widowed, black, white, hispanic, Asian -- all the religions -- all of it, having some interaction that is positive, getting to know each other or at least recognize each other.
But in Brooklyn, they've still got community. Community with a local flare, and lots of attitude.
Take Brooklyn kickball. What a riot. Started in 2003, the Brooklyn Kickball league now has over 30 teams that play in the league from April through October, usually on Sundays in McCarren Park in Brooklyn.
Here's the Brooklyn kickball league webpage with all the information. http://brooklynkickball.com/ Kickball, like the little kids play in school. Which means everybody can be on a team, pretty much, even if they're not some super athlete. And anybody who doesn't want to play can always come out to watch, hang out, eat, and cheer on their favorites.
The names of the teams are very clever: The Government Kick-backs; The Non-Committals; Brooklyn United; Never Scared; the Pony Boys; The Crucial Taunt; The Drinkers With A Kicking Problem. The players also have creative nicknames, such as Justin “Nipple” Taylor, Rob “Matzo” Lotzko, Lexi “Governor” Patterson, Autumn “Prison” Jorgensen, Tank “The Frank” Moylan, and Matt “Marquis De” Sadewitz.
They often have very creative costumes, too. Here are some team photos:
In addition to spending all day Sunday in McCarren Park from the spring through the fall, playing, watching the other teams, being a spectator, eating, drinking, laughing, hanging out, just getting outside and being part of it, the Brooklyn Kickball teams also sometimes have parties, dances, and other activities.
Like in all sports, there is a "commissioner" of kickball in Brooklyn, and there are sometimes conflicts between the players and the commissioner. It's just that the way in which these conflicts are discussed is a little different, a little more folksy in a Brooklyn kind of way, than the MBA/Harvard Law agents we're used to hearing when there is a dispute in professional (big money) sports in this country.
Here's how one such dispute between a Brooklyn kickballer Robert L. who played on a dominant team named Prison, and the Brooklyn kickball commissioner Kevin Dailey played out in the press:
"[F]ormer kickballer Robert L. confirms. 'I told [38-year-old Brooklyn Kickball commissioner] Kevin Dailey he was a fat fuck and to go sniff coke."
[Kickballer Robert L. continues]: "[Brooklyn Kickball] allows people to reinvent themselves... [Commissioner] Kevin Dailey is now the coolest guy on earth every sunday night to 32 teams with 10 or more people on it. And every person on every team is the coolest person who ever moved to Brooklyn."
[Kickballer Robert continues]: "I work out alot and have a typical "jock" build. So everyone skinny hipster is afraid of me ... and you have 120 pound boys who look like girls being scared and complaining about our team. ... [Commissioner] Kevin Daily hates me and my whole team!"
"For his part, Kickball Commissioner Kevin Daily wrote in a letter:"
"Despite all the bullshit swarming around me for the last couple of years, I'm still here. Not anonymous calls to the Parks Department, selective cutting and pasting, or Gawker.com will keep me away. Still standing. I have no reason to go. I've done a fucking excellent job...."
http://gawker.com/385873/a-rogue-williamsburg-kickballer-explains-it-all
A Guide to Friends: Accept, Ignore, Reject Or Block.
.
When I get a friend request, I look at their page, and if I don't see anything too crazy I click Okay, but then I look again, and if I see anything that makes me suspicious, I quickly Unfriend them. What makes me suspicious? Pictures of guns, among other things. No thanks, not a gun fan.
People who call themselves Constitutionalists, or Birthers, or Teabaggers. No, no interest at all. Pro-war, pro-violence crazy stuff. No, not for me.
Bald-headed thick-necked tattooed steroid-infused men with rusty safety pins through their nipples, prominently photographed for their adoring fans -- not appealing. And what's up with the females that send around friend requests with a nude profile photo of their ass? Not my type. But I always think the rusty safety-pin guy and the nude-ass profile gal might want to hook up. Similar types of brain damage, they might comfort each other. Or form a support group.
Other friends I don't need: the Klan, the Nazis. Aryan Brotherhood. The Hooters Fan Club. Not really my thing. Dallas Cowboys need to look somewhere else for friends. I'm sure Area 51 is a nice place to visit, but I don't want to be friends with somebody whose profile picture is the little ET dude. Move on, I'm not the one you need. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney: don't even bother, I am not now, never will be your friends, I don't care how many friend requests you send me, it's not going to happen. Condi Rice: sorry sister, you hang out with the wrong crowd, I'll just ignore your friend request.
Too many of those little farm posts make me wonder if we really have anything in common, me and the person who wants to be friends (Mary wants your help in picking a nice basket of tomatos at her farmville -- I think maybe Funny Farm ville is where Mary belongs). Then there are the people who claim to be part of the mob and want me to help them wipe out the other gang. All in good online fun, of course. I've never really liked the whole "let's pretend to slaughter people" type of games. Jacks I could go for. Ping Pong is okay, too.
One final note: there is no way to know whether these so-called "friends" are lying or telling the truth about who they really are. All these friends could be lying with every comment they make. For example, I suspect that one of my online "friends" is really George Clooney using an assumed name, but he's too shy to just come out and approach me directly. And he doesn't want the model-girlfriend to find out, either. I respect his wish for privacy, and I shall continue to use discretion in our communications.
Other than all of the above restrictions, cautionary notes and prohibitions, I'm fairly tolerant.
(The last sentence is a lie).
When I get a friend request, I look at their page, and if I don't see anything too crazy I click Okay, but then I look again, and if I see anything that makes me suspicious, I quickly Unfriend them. What makes me suspicious? Pictures of guns, among other things. No thanks, not a gun fan.
People who call themselves Constitutionalists, or Birthers, or Teabaggers. No, no interest at all. Pro-war, pro-violence crazy stuff. No, not for me.Bald-headed thick-necked tattooed steroid-infused men with rusty safety pins through their nipples, prominently photographed for their adoring fans -- not appealing. And what's up with the females that send around friend requests with a nude profile photo of their ass? Not my type. But I always think the rusty safety-pin guy and the nude-ass profile gal might want to hook up. Similar types of brain damage, they might comfort each other. Or form a support group.
Other friends I don't need: the Klan, the Nazis. Aryan Brotherhood. The Hooters Fan Club. Not really my thing. Dallas Cowboys need to look somewhere else for friends. I'm sure Area 51 is a nice place to visit, but I don't want to be friends with somebody whose profile picture is the little ET dude. Move on, I'm not the one you need. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney: don't even bother, I am not now, never will be your friends, I don't care how many friend requests you send me, it's not going to happen. Condi Rice: sorry sister, you hang out with the wrong crowd, I'll just ignore your friend request.
Too many of those little farm posts make me wonder if we really have anything in common, me and the person who wants to be friends (Mary wants your help in picking a nice basket of tomatos at her farmville -- I think maybe Funny Farm ville is where Mary belongs). Then there are the people who claim to be part of the mob and want me to help them wipe out the other gang. All in good online fun, of course. I've never really liked the whole "let's pretend to slaughter people" type of games. Jacks I could go for. Ping Pong is okay, too.
One final note: there is no way to know whether these so-called "friends" are lying or telling the truth about who they really are. All these friends could be lying with every comment they make. For example, I suspect that one of my online "friends" is really George Clooney using an assumed name, but he's too shy to just come out and approach me directly. And he doesn't want the model-girlfriend to find out, either. I respect his wish for privacy, and I shall continue to use discretion in our communications.
Other than all of the above restrictions, cautionary notes and prohibitions, I'm fairly tolerant.
(The last sentence is a lie).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)