Informed by Informing Information

Listen, I really don't get any joy when I come across indications that to be "American" is to be blatantly uninformed and reactionary, but I come across them all too often of late. No, I get it, all media has its slant and a line of people somewhere in the US is not, in and of itself, suggesting a plague of ignorance. But, there's something else at work here; that those people interviewed in the line who claimed they couldn't think of anything off hand (but might be able to research it) really wouldn't be able to create valid arguments because they simply don't have the resources.

Take, for instance, the new breast cancer screening regulations. And consider an example of the outrage that followed. Despite the fact that Sarah Palin's death panels were non-existence, this was seen by many as an act of rationing care; that the social/commun/lenin/mao/ists are corrupting America with big government legislation which is out to kill women to save money in order to provide healthcare to the illegals. Now, I spent about 20 minutes looking through not stories on the guidelines but the published report itself. I'm not doctor, and parts of it are hard to simply skim, but its not too difficult to see that the changes aren't earth-shattering, and (if you look at the previous reports) not unprecedented. Basically, this panel concluded, in tandem with the World Health Organization and other groups, that the risks of regular mammography in women in their 40s could not be overtly justified by the committee and should be left to the individuals and doctors.

The language is hardly absolute and inflammatory, yet the reaction is visceral. I see two reasons for this, first that breast cancer is a widespread, personal and highly emotional condition/issue for people who suffer and families that lose those people. A great deal of the reporting is clouded with testimonies of those who's lives were saved by a mammogram at age 40, or a mother who could have been saved had she been to regular screenings. Surely the human interest aspects of news are important, they make us care about issues that might otherwise seem foreign, but we cannot let emotional reaction prevent us from reading reports critically. I mean, if you read a news story that says doctors are suggesting that you do the opposite of what you know saved a friends life, wouldn't you attempt to figure out exactly what it was the doctors said? I tend to investigate those things that seem illogical to me.

Compounding this is the healthcare debate. The conservative zealots and politicians in the pockets of the insurance industry would do anything and everything to prevent passing any reform. Anything that even hints at some sort of change is painted as being forced upon us and destroying the America we love. Of course this has nothing to do with the actual science, the understanding of the science, or the value of human life but of campaign donations and political ideology. The result, I think, was a discourse fed by emotion and outrage in which people didn't have time to read the actual language; most were too busy writing witty and biting remarks to those that did not find the guidelines distasteful.

More recently, science was thrust into media debate again. Apparently, emails from an institution devoted to studying climate change were stolen. And, apparently these emails suggest that we are witness to the largest scientific conspiracy in the history of the age of enlightenment. ClimateGate. Scientists are corrupt, hiding data, spinning results and "tricking" the world into believe that humans are having an impact on global ecology. As to the details of what would drive scientists to do this, I am at a loss. I have not reviewed these thousands of emails myself yet, but the snippets I have read show some geeky scientist humor and discussion of problems facing climate scientists. Either this is just science being science, or this is evidence that the existence of global warming is still up for debate. Time to freak out.

To me this shows me what I already knew about science from reading Bruno Latour's Science in Action and studying an archaeological field school. Science is not pretty, its done by people who have their own motives and friends and enemies. Quote Gavin Schmitd in the NYT,

“Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

Now what he may have failed to mention is that Newtown's hypothetical jackassery likely made theoretical gravity what it is. There might be a lot of evidence to support climate change, but correlations alone do not a scientific movement make. We need to find the correlations and test them and believe them and tell others in order to make them true. I have said before that I think science is misunderstood by many who simply accept its authority. If you send a bunch of white men to college for a really long time and then they write long papers with big words, you're likely to believe what they have to say, especially because their really smart friends also believe them.

But science and medicine are human constructs and human practices. As such they are imperfect, and this goes beyond the whole test, retest and suggest tests for the future thing. The idea of pure fact, of the truth about climate change, is always going to be seen through a fallible, human lens. We cannot simply observe. We can only observe through our baggage, like the scientists who discuss, within their work-related emails, skeptics and journalists that complicate their lives.

Without going into a mini-version of my thesis, my point is that the coverage of events, and misunderstanding of what science is, lead to in this case, an inability for many to figure out what the hell was going on. If I might make make the elitist assumption that not all my fellow Americans are as unoccupied, investigative, cynical and academic as I am, I think I can safely say that John and Jane Doe, watching ABCs nightly news, would not go to such lengths as I have gone here to understand the debates. We find trusted sources, take them at their words, and are provided with convenient buzz words to utilize in discussions with our friends and family.

Unfortunately, that most of the country is simply fed info by their moving picture boxes is supported by the general sitgma of intellectuals, those rich elitists stuck in their books and out of touch with people. Though I experienced it in college, I find more and more in the "real" world that independent review and learning is scoffed at and ignored in the face of more palatable perspectives (those which incite the emotions). Thinking is generally unprofitable and a waste of money-making time and a lot of people won't make time for it. Thus, we find ourselves in a time when the Palin line counts as informed decision making.

A Rant of One Who Would Destroy America

Listen,

No really, listen:

You know how Glenn Beck talks about liberal leftists destroying America. This is what one really sounds like. SPOILER ALERT: I am an elitist and cynical, lefty hippie.

I seems that maybe Obama charmed his way to the White House following in the steps of George W. Bush. The biggest difference? Obama was legitimately elected, and no one wanted to have a beer with him; they just hoped that he would bring some progressive action to the presidency.

Sure it's too early to judge him as a president but it's not looking good. Take something like healthcare, quality and affordable healthcare. It seems he would let his own party not only butcher the concept of a public option into some meaningless, impotent moderate compromise, but he would also watch members of his own party threaten to block the bill the even coming to a vote. If I believed in a god, I would invoke its name and beg it to make Obama take a stand. I've seen nothing but pandering and inaction. If one really wants to close a secret torture center, one simply needs to close it. Instead, Obama offers nothing but waiting. Same with waging war. He continues to support the killing of human beings and recognizes an illegitimate Afghan leader. If you hate murdering humans, then simply take a courageous step, walk away and face the shame and ridicule that we fucked up. No, really. Finally, Gay rights have taken significant blows recently and Mr. Obama, who looked to be a friend of the LGBTQ community, a president who felt the need to support democrats in local elections, said nothing of the referendums on gay marriage and civil union.

We are not on good terms, him and me. His administration has been consumed of late with a debate with the standing on cable media, laying wreaths and with pandering to the right, the very people who didn't vote for him and oppose anything with his name on it. Here's how it works. Leaders lead, which means making decisions and taking actions that will get you criticism from your foes and your sell-out party members. I believed that Obama believed in what he said he believed in. So far, it seems he's on a one way street to sell-out-ville. But I am just a disgruntled liberal.

So, what of freedom and democracy and capitalism. Lies. At least in this current country. Freedom and equality are routinely denied to some at the hands of pseudo-democracy and capitalism. Listen, capitalism ensures the success of the rich and necessitates the plight of the poor. And its no mistake that the rich are married (though philandering) white men and the poor single black women. The American Dream is a fantasy that addicts the lower classes to a definition of success that demands materialism; own more stuff, be hotter stuff. But, then the middle classes need to own more stuff to out-stuff the lower class. Finally, profit, for the rich anyway, who own all the stuffs that the stuff-wanters want. This is all inherent in a system that places import upon certain types of personal wealth. Add in a side of corporate corruption and you have an exploitative invisible hand that crushes the masses while the top one percent suckle at its teat. Hello cynicism!

Democracy would suggest that these masses might have some leverage. Nope. Politicians are in the pocket of the one percent, if they themselves aren't in the one percent. Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or Olympia Snowe might have had meager, down-home beginnings but they've arisen to such a class and success that they have no personal stake in what the public wants. The public, the masses, support a public option. Yet, at the hands of insurance lobbyists, many politicians will press the congress to produce a bill that has exactly the opposite. But surely the masses could simply vote out these corrupt leaders. Except the masses mostly believe they have to choose between the lesser of two evils and not someone who represents their interests. Independent and progressive candidates are painted as left or right wing wackos who speak their minds, express exactly what they mean and make no concessions (for shame!). This has gone on for so long that the public does not take advantage of its right to elect leaders. For once, the decisions of the public matter, their apathy declares that contemporary politics and American democracy is dying.

And now I'd like to take a moment and criticize my favorite target: the media. That mostly electronic outlet that offers only lies, sensationalism and advertising under the guise of some perverted form of journalism. All the fair and balanced television media offer nothing of value except opinion, which the majority of people take as news. And yes, I am playing the elitism card, if that card is recognizing that those with independent, critical minds are portrayed as out of touch, ivory towerists. I'm not suggesting that I have a better perspective, but simply utilizing what my perspective gives me, an ability to recognize other perspectives.

Furthermore the media dupes us with stories of celebrity drama, "reality" shows, and a fetishism of death. Routinely, stories of import to the state of American life, stories that reveal the lies of politicians and stories that give indication to the worrisome and problematic state of the world are ignored for sensationalist reporting, empty accusations and "human interest" reporting which gives us a nice fluffy feeling in our hearts. In short, we are trained to ignore politics, realist perspectives and sad stories with bad endings and trained to consume and discuss sad stories with happy endings. The substance is left, then, to comedy shows which satirize the media and offer the only sane reaction to the state of things, laughter.

Also, people in the United States are routinely denied civil and human rights by a largely Christian, exclusionary paradigm. Gays cannot marry, gays are considered inherently sinful and shameful and somehow not normal, women are paid less, women are denied agency over their own bodies, immigrants are described as insidious invaders, Muslims are labeled as terrorists, blacks, by no coincidence, wind up most hampered by the capitalist system, state legislators routinely participate in state sanctioned murder, millions are denied rights to basic healthcare and I once got a parking ticket for parking in front of my own house. It's all fucked up.

And what is the solution? The collapse of capitalism followed by a humanist overthrow of the Christian, oppressive US government by the people. Realistically, I believe this would result in the dissolution of the United States and the establishment of new territories. Now, being the ardent and hopeless pacifist that I am and do not see violence as a necessary. I believe that the disenchantment of the people and a natural collapse of capitalism will throw these United States into such an identity crises that the current form of government and economic will be unable to stand. I believe it's happening now. Increasingly the wackos on all ends of the political spectrums are the only one's making sense. Even if their values conflict with my own, I find sanity in their ferocity to accomplish something in the face of the establishment.

Now I cannot predict the result. But I do believe that the America as we know it will fall and be remade. I believe that this will come down to a clash between secularism and religiosity. But, I hope, and here comes the utopia, that a state arises that promotes (in deliberate rejection of freedom and liberty and justice) tolerance and peace and humanism for all. This final thought, the naive utopia, is the only thing that gives me much hope these days as I become increasingly maddened and anxious and cynical at the hand of my overwhelming disillusionment.

Disdain.

Where is the voice of my generation?

It floats above, or below

in some indecipherable shape.

And so much comes between us.

So much that I hate.

I know nothing but disdain

it seems these days.

So much of the identity of our generation seems based on the left or the right. The either, or. The bipolar, dualistic character of contemporary politics. So divided are we that the call for reaching across this "aisle" seems futile. Any halfwit with an average wingspan can reach across an aisle. It's a given, small step for a (hu)man and a small step for (hu)mankind. My disdain spans this aisle, and it is no great accomplishment.

This disdain is not of intellect or politics. It is one directed towards anything that prevents us from seeing some common human familyhood. So far, our generation, in the face of a global (online) culture and global (climatological) threats, has resisted the call to accept the human. Focusing instead on aisles.

Get over it. Shake hands, hug, or simply smile at one another. There is no right, there is no wrong. No heaven and hell. Just make the most of it while you can. Or else we'll end up as a laughable reiteration.

An Ode to TV News

You can slam a door, a book, a fist,

when you're frust'rated with fed-uppery,

you can make unsightly gestures.

But you daren't expect to press a button,

or mute or surf

with similar satisfaction,

whilst those glowing boxes,

and their talking heads

spew forth nonsensical, babbling bull.

And befoul the ears of Common Sense.

click.

Double Standards

So, Bill Clinton saved the day today and won the prize for best photo-op of the month, most likely. But, there are those who see this as a blow to the United States' firm stance against North Korea. That sending a former president into Pyongyang gives away our upper hand and fuels North Korean propoganda. This is detrimental, you know, becuase they are evil. Axis of evil anyone? I mean these guys have a nuclear program. And long range missiles. That they test!

Thank the powers that be that there is some government that peacefully controls nuclear proliferation! Oh wait...

The US killed between 100,000 and 300,000 Humans, some instantly and some in long drawn-out deaths, in order to usher in the atomic age. It should come as no surprise then that US nuclear policy says no one should have weapons, except the US. Afterall, we're the only nation to show a tendency to use nuclear weapons. Clearly we should keep them around.

My point is that North Korea's program can't possible be more evil that ours. If nuclear programs and missile technology makes an evil, problematic nation, then the US is the scourge of Earth.

Nuclear weapons are detrimental to Human existence. Period. In the hands of anyone and everyone. Period.

Celebrity Death

Listen:

To the story of a creature,

of the skulking un-dead variety.

How horrid!

His heinous countenance,

Crumbling and decaying,

At once drying out and oozing.

Hideous!

But to peace not

will this pitiful post-person go.

Sweet death is distant.

Fantasy.

And not some heavenly death, mind you.

No wings, no halos.

No non-sense, only non-ness.

A black void, lacking shade and space.

Such simple nothingness,

Will not greet this creature.

No, our heinous friend,

Maggot ridden,

Is paraded about, as a puppet on strings.

By some unholy master

tweaking and pulling,

And proding.

Poke, poke.

Still dead.

Irreverent and profitable spectacle,

Is this distraction from death, sweet and simple.

Our deceasing dummy dances,

Effortlessly through the air.

Crumblings streaking through the sky.

Bits and pieces.

What would chicken little cry?

For this is not sky!

As chunks of those ceasing to be,

Spiral through the sky,

From that towering death pedestal.

Here below, as our once-was flails,

Effortlessly through the skies,

His pieces enter our lives.

A heaping hunk of rump,

Rends the morning newspaper.

Oodles of nervous noodles,

Bespeckle our tee vees.

Muscular matter stratifies,

As mud,

Atop our magazines.

The news, now befouled,

Buried and unrecognized,

'Neath flesh and sinews.

No peace, until the last piece

Of dismal, dank, decaying death,

Has descended to our delight,

And is devoured.

Some capitalist cannibalism,

Eating what once was our own.

Yum!

Once in pain, they passed into death,

But they perpetuate un-dead,

Their rotting remains, ransacked,

And ever remaining,

As stains on the age of information.

Peace-less as piece-less.

At the foot of the pedestal standing strong,

Ever nourished by rich soil,

Fed by fecund futureless fanaticism,

And the crumbling of civility,

All round.

The Wealth Human

Take the grocery store. Ultra Foods. Chicago Heights IL on a nameless, hot and sunny July afternoon.

A bustling place with all sorts wandering through for any number of reasons. One item or hundreds. Myself, I can only be overwhelmed and philosophically sickened by the preponderance of shelves, those stuffed with stuffs.

But checkout. The exit is where the magic happens. The culmination driven by impatience. An impatience bred by line-making and standing. O the queue! Bitterness from inactivity and monetary transaction. Or the screaming children. This perhaps explains the bitterness and stoicism and frowns I witness. A testimony I make while sitting idly with my beloved grandmother near the exit.

I think. Cart after cart, followed by face after frowning face. All downtrodden as if immune to that odd contortion we call a smile.

I feel like they are all simply bodies moving.

People watching in the international terminal at an airport, for example, is simply bodies moving. But with seeming purpose. Destination and origin envelop their movement. Baggage trails. I see context, if liminal.

But watching these bleak bodies pass at the grocery store is somewhat disturbing. These bodies, unwitting Proles perhaps, pass through liminality only within their economical purpose. Their baggage, only product. Consumption in the raw.

A capitalist nightmare, a perversion of the human in motion.

Distraught, weary and detesting faces which epitomize robotic forms being led by their vessels of consumption. Pulled along through an incomprehensible plethora of things to have. Unable to find what they need or want. Only to buy what was come across.

Choice, thus, becomes an illusion. For choice is beside the point in this case. So long as a body takes and transacts.

Then, passing through to another side, the out-side, a body is led onto the black asphalt lot. Treeless, void and bleak. Naught but intense sun and rows of reflection. Shiny machines which transport and consume only further. From the black of pavement to that black non-solid torn from the depths.

No wonder they seem bitter. No wonder I see bitterness?

But is it wrong to consider them a "them?" What makes me so different? Having passed myself through the same bulk hell. Was it, perhaps the quaint moment? Sitting beside my cherished mother's mother? Waiting silently on a bench, as through at a bus stop of yore? A moment of pause in a matrix of motion? There I was, something apart, no cart. Existing, if briefly, idly in a place of rapid transition.

And sure, these passing bodies are soon to gain some purposeful, non-economic purpose. Home, family, work or wherever their place has belonging and is needed. To once again live and not simply give and take. Live thriving in the moments, pauses and ease of less hectic places.

But why, as the organism demands sustenance, leave that for such a state? When once, subsisting was full of pride. Full of value and need.

Not of supply and demand.

Shame. That the other way, the quaint way, is poverty these days. That those who make and take only what they need, that they are foolish for taking and making so little. Silly poor!

Yet, poor in wealth material is not to be poor in the wealth human. A wealth in which the contorting lips become smiles, beaming and reassuring in their simplicity.

The wealth human. Seen through its absence, trailing wire vessels, in the sagging faces of the passing persons in the exit hallways, at a giant grocery store. On the southside of Chicago. Illinois, USA. Earth, solar system, Milky Way.

Corruption, Journalism and Academic Dismay

In late May of this year, the Chicago Tribune published an investigative report (Clout Goes to College) which exposed a trend of under-qualified, but politically connected, students being admitted into the University of Illinois (Champagne-Urbana).

The story revealed, through documents acquired via a freedom of information act request, that some 800 students had landed on a so-called 'clout list.' These students, also known as 'Category I,' by the university, experienced higher acceptance rates despite their overall lower ACT and class-rank .

Essentially, students with connections to top political officials in Illinois (including members of the state congress and members of former Governor Blagojevich's administration) were magically being admitted into the university, despite poor qualifications and rejections by the university's admissions officials.

To anyone familiar with the politics of Illinois, the only response was a weary shake of the head and a, "...Should have seen it coming," response.

Since May, the Tribune has continued extensive reporting on the case, including filing a lawsuit against the University to release more records. (View the subsequent reports here.) Indeed, the matter stirred a great deal of outrage and the new Illinois governor launched a commission to investigate the practices.

And it gets better, listen to a few of the developments revealed since the initial report.

The U. of Illinois Law School was specifically cited for its use of clout in admissions. To make things worse, it seems that deliberate trades were organized and made. In exchange for admitting a student backed by Blagojevich, the Dean of Law was offered job opportunities for graduates of the program. Which graduates you ask? How about the Category I students who were under-qualified in the first place?

But exchanging favors for jobs is nothing new in Illinois. And neither are bribes in the form of money and incentives. The U. of I. Chancellor (top administrator) claimed that exchanging jobs was a way of undoing some of the damage done by the admitting Category I students. And finally, in order to make sure this cover-my-ass technique worked, the Chancellor offered the School a tasty sum of $300,000 in the form of scholarships (to entice well qualified students).

So, now we can put a price on guaranteed admission to the University of Illinois School of Law. 300 grand. Yes, this sum was offered in exchange of admission for one, well-connected, student.

The response of U. of I. officials has been one of desperation and regret. They paint a picture of big, evil Illinois politics swirling around their meager academic forms. And then, professors of Law at Illinois wrote a letter to the Tribune calling into the question the attention the publication paid towards this issue. Apparently, the fact that patronage and clout systems like the one so deeply exposed in Illinois are not rare in these professor's experience. But this fact is not an excuse for the university, though it is cause enough to criticize the paper. It seems that widespread, but unspoken-of corruption should come as no surprise to Tribune editors and should not land on the front page.

This last bit, the professors' letter, pissed me off the most. I have two responses. The first is that academics like those professors and the administrators of U. of I. have no excuse to crumble under political pressure. The mission of institution of higher education is to mentor brilliant minds and contribute to scholarly debate and current research. Political standing and pressure should be of little concern to academic institutions. Perhaps I am simply disturbed that this so-called bubble that academics work in was proven mythical in this case. That one might escape from political corruption and find a legitimate pursuit (if not enlightenment) in Illinois' foremost public institution of higher education seems like a reasonable expectation. For these administrators and intellectuals to simply shrug their shoulders and claim that there was nothing they could do is nonsense. Or perhaps I have too much faith in professionals, that they might retain a shred of respect for themselves and education in the face of filthy politics. That they might value reputation and quality higher learning more than a job, however politically cushy and media friendly. The failure of those expectations leads me to read their letter as more of an attempt to remain in good standing with Illinois politicians, than of reputable academic "dismay."

I must apologize for the length of this entry. But, it is largely due to the Chicago Tribune's thorough investigation and reporting. Their initial story was backed up with almost 2,000 pages of documents. And they sued the university for more. My second, and final, response is to the absurdity that any self-respecting academic would criticize a wonderful example of investigative reporting. Is it not the job of news publications to inform the public of such outrageous practices that have, heretofore, gone unarticulated? Sadly, the death of Michael Jackson has actually kept some of these developments off the front the page and out of people's minds. Nevertheless, in an age in which large centralized corporate media organizations are taking over the "news" with advertising and gimimcks, and in an age in which print media is becoming extinct, this series has renewed, to an extent, my faith in the Chicago media. Not only have they gone to great lengths to expose every nook and cranny of this academic corruption, they have stuck with it such depressing and familiar material for months. What's more, the stories I've cited here appear to do so without mounting campaigns against specific individuals. Editorializing has remained in the editorial section (cited so many times in the professor's letter). Continued, inscrutable coverage of such events, even if an attempt to reach journalistic heights of the Watergate era, even if an attempt to be successful at one's career, is respectable and professional.

As an aspiring intellectual, I cannot understand how any person of thought, any doctor of philosophy, could possibly object to a publication that provokes thought, incites outrage and presents their understanding of what has happened.

The governor's investigation is to conclude in early August, and as if I was captivated by a serial story of yore, I keep tuning in for every twist and turn.

In the end, the developments I've seen here have been the cherry on top of my disenchantment sunday of late. And in that recipe for cynicism has been a fed-uppedness (try that word on for size!) with Illinois and it's politics. Though, as my work on The Butler Underground indicate, private institutions are far from perfect, I can be glad that I avoided another clout-shrouded institution in Illinois.

From the Death Pedestal to Philosophical Fear

In case you were out, the so-called king of pop died last Thursday. And, every day since we have been reminded that, indeed, he is still dead. No more dead than he was Thursday, certainly no less dead, but nevertheless, still dead enough. Then, I had the misfortune of tuning in CNN to get a brief of current events for work on Sunday morning only to be reminded by four, count them, four separate analysts that Jackson was dead. And (get this!), there was an autopsy. Someone died (died I tell you!) and those doctors had the audacity to try and figure out why. Finally, and I hope I read the news reports accurately, it seems that people are planning a funeral for the dead Michael Jackson.

Even this very morning it seems the only thing worthy of public consideration is that Jackson is still dead. Both CNN and MSNBC (The place for politics) are reporting this. If such thorough and reputable media organizations are reporting this, it must be true.

It seems my fears of the zombie apocalypse, at least in the case of Jackson, were, thankfully, unfounded.

In a close second and third recently, two more celebrity deaths. And fourth? That Farrah Fawcett's death was overshadowed by Jackson's.

I'm simply sick of this shit. Let's have a run down of things that actually are happening (other than the recapitulation of Jackson's death): The political situation in Iran dropped off the map as the state approached revolution. We are at war in two countries; though today marks the begining of the pull out in Iraq. The University of Illinois is under investigation for not only admitting unqualified (but well connected) students, but trading admission decisions for job placements (for underqualified candidates). As if two wars weren't enough, there is more war mongering begining to be directed at North Korea. Nevermind all the death and human suffering that never makes the news because we have become accustomed to it; that is, destitution, hunger and exploitation of the "low" classes in the US and around the world.

I think that this is becoming more than a short-sighted, anecdotal and momentary demonstration of priorities. This is an infectious and expanding attitude that will be detrimental to the social and physical state of the world. The continous expansion of celebrity obsession is more than a distraction, it is a deliberate state of ignorance. It is a conscious shrugging of the shoulders to those problems that are too depressing to be profitable. I will go as far as to say that the media storm surrounding the 2008 election, ironically, was a similar calculated means to set aside the mortal, sadistic, corrupt and depressing side of the human condition. I say that because the hoopla that peaked at the inauguration dropped off almost instantly as soon as Obama began facing the problems he campaigned about.

There are few things that I'm truly afraid of (in a philosohpical sense). One is my untimely death at the chaotic hands of an evangelical Christian children's army. Another, a new one, is the long-term effect that this new profit-hungry, mainstream, normative, omnipresent media machine is having. There will a come a point where profit will not be a strong enough forced to demand all our attention. I can only hope that the competing force, at that point, will not be self-preservation.

The Decay of the American Dream

I saw a woodpecker today, pecking.
Peck, peck pecking,
On a wooden fence.

Peck, peck, pecking on a white wooden fence.

I said, to the woodpecker,
Why, you are mis-taken,
You, pecking on that white wooden fence.

There are no grubs within,
No homely hollow to harbor your heavy head,
Tired, from pecking that white wooden fence.

There is no inside,
Only the otherside,
A woody illusion, deluding your birdy brain.

I pleaded with the woodpecker, as he pecked,
Peck, peck, pecked that white wooden fence.
Move on! Make haste!

The woodpecker paused,
He fluttered off.
I do not think he heard.

My plea, drowned out by that futile peck, peck, pecking,
On that white wooden fence.

A Cartoonish History of Race

In one of my anthropology classes we referenced this cartoon. We had been looking at a cartoon that depicted two ape-like figures balancing on a scale. As to which one was more ape-like, we went undecided. Beneath one figure was something like, "Black," and on the other, "Irish." Through this cartoon we were able to observe the confusing and amorphous boundary between concepts we know as Race and Ethnicity.

It was fairly easy to see the blatant racism/ethnocentrism at the heart of this matter, for the scale was prefectly balanced. Then, our professor foreshadowed what was to come and said that she had hoped we would be past such things. The next slide was the cartoon depicted above. It has been at the center of much controversy and just today, Rupert Murdock publicly apologized for its appearance.

Our professor said something truly intriguing in conclusion. She said that she could not say anything about intentions. No judgements can be made there. She could however, say something about our reactions. Again, this is not a matter of judging but rather of taking social note. The artists intentions are pointless, what is of more depressing note is the great deal of anxiety that such precarious depictions generate within the United States.

I will say something more of this. The concept of race or nationality or ethnicity has been entwined with notions of belonging and difference. Such a concept would not be so threatening were it not for the nature of power. That is, when a group comes to control resources, suddenly the ability to belong (or condition of being excluded) becomes a matter of life and death.

As the 19th Century turned to the 20th, the importance of race became so critical that those in power went to one of the highest sources of legitimization: Science. Here we come across anthropology's dark side. Social Darwinism, eugenics and race science exploded on the scene. Anthropologists are greatly culpable for creating categories of race and "scientific" means with which to identify them. The result was the presumption that biological causes played into the definition of race.

More contemporary debate has complicated this view. The American Anthropological Association has adopted statements that demean, if not reject, the importance of biology in race. Along with this is the position that race is a social construction, indeed, an "experience". A more relativist claim (as anthropologists are won't to make) suggests that race is not so pure, that is at once derived from an inseparable conception of biology and social experience/expectations.

I propose something different. I think that race is a box in which we arbitrarily store perceptions of slight human variation. That said, the basis for race is indeed purely biological; the biological condition being classification as Homo sapiens. To be human subjects one to the slight variations of our bodily entities, as well as a capacity to interpret them. Such capacity is a result of our shared brain chemistry and preempts social experience.

Think of our biology (that is, our common human condition) as a series of dots. Not unlike this cartoon above, we are presented with an array of dots (this might have implications of recognizing a creator/designer, a view that I do not condone). The intention of the one who arranged these dots is, for all intensive purposes, absent and unknowable. It is the manner in which we arrange these dots into meaningful patterns of words and figures which is knowable. Surely, some parts of our recognition are beyond our control, but many aren't. Ultimately, this interpretation is subject to change, and changes more often that we recognize it. Race, in any sort of reality, is simply an arrangement of dots (one that does not vary considerably). Our interpretation of these dots is what we know popularly as race, and ironically, we perceive it to vary drastically.

Translate this to the cartoon above. We are presented with a series of lines the origins of which we cannot and should not begin to guess. It is not the fact that the artist may have portrayed Obama in a 19th century manner which is saddening. It is the brutal reality that we are still able to see in this series of dots something comprising a dead, bleeding chimp which represents our president. We need not accept this interpretation (of the ape being Obama) for us to play into the current discourse of racism, we simply need recognize the possibility.

As we grasp hold of a postmodern conception of race, we can begin to move beyond deeply embedded historical artifacts which characterize our social experience of race in the United States. It is by recognizing and embracing our subjective and agentative role in the interpretation of biological monoliths that we will move passed this anxiety. We should not be sponges simply absorbing social ideas, but rather something with a more guarded permeability. Not something closed, but something inherently critical and understanding.

The National Sole

I made the mistake of watching one of the cable news channels this morning for, say, 10 minutes. In that short time I saw this video some 20 or 30 times. The president, despite regaining a pinch of respect for his puma-like reflexes, nevertheless made a fool of himself once again. He quite literally shrugged off the incident, said he couldn't understand why it would happen, but that it was the sign of a free society.

Even the attention-whores of the media caught on that this act was more than protest, but outright disrespect. It seems that the sole of the shoe especially is considered quite unclean and profane by some Muslims.

Still, its not every day that dignitaries like the US president have articles of clothing hurled in their direction. Or is it? I think the reaction today was more chuckles and less sock, I mean, shock. Apologies. I suppose I would expect no less at this point in history. It's fairly obvious these days that our president and the national image he represents are far from the reknowned reputations of yore.

Perhaps this discussion is moot, for a lame-duck can only expect a reputation as such. But, I think this is some baggage that the next administration will have to deal with. Obama will not start with a new slate, but rather some sort of corroding, eroded, malformed semblence of a slate. Obama is no Christ either, he cannot conjure up some heroic and instantaneous reconstruction.

It's going to take a while to leave the shoes of Bush behind and clear a new path.

Of Mud and Famous People

I made this photo before Mr. Obama was elected president. I started off naive, unaware of the magic that was held within my press credentials. I stood in line for 15 or 20 minutes and slowly meandered through the fairgrounds as part of one of the largest lines I've seen. I passed two cameras, a bag full of lenses and a cell phone through the metal detectors and fought my way as close to the stage as I thought I could get.

I didn't have a shot.

Long story short, a volunteer saw me with my cameras and led me to his supervisor who, in turn, led me underneath the media riser into the press area. I waded through mud and rain and high school journalists and, though my shoes never smelled the same, produced some of the best images of my life.

Its funny, I didn't have a lot of room (physically and figuratively) for artistry. Mostly, I just wanted high quality images of the man. Yet, somehow, though his gestures are so rehearsed that they are reproduced in nearly every speaking series, the now President-Elect managed to make even a dull rainy image something inspiring.

Let's hope this effect remains true.

Musings

I had a thought today that nearly rattled me to my core. I was stuck in typical Chicago traffic, reluctantly using my air conditioning due to the toxic levels of humidity in the air, and I was noticing the gas prices. $4.30 here, $4.45 there. And I realized that I was making mental notes of how the gas prices shifted. And then I realized that I knew where to get the cheapest gas. And then I thought, "Well, if I really want cheap gas I could make the 3 hour drive to Indianapolis and pick it up there." Commuting for gas? No, no this isn't good. I thought like a true American, only we would come up with such contradictory solutions to problems. Commuting for gas. Yes, the end is near.

In a brief moment of clarity and illumination I stumbled over my tragic flaw as a man and as a perpetuater of the human race. I am not a hopeless romantic. Nay. I am instead drawn to women that have attained or exude some form of maturity or poise that I have yet to attain myself (and may never attain). Its a shame. Ever the tragic optimist, though, I'm sure one day someone will come along who is mature enough to cultivate my splendid genes into some future-full proto-human.

Ironicality, anyone? I am by no means a militant nutrition junkie, but I make more healthy choices that not I think. I also run an average of 10 miles a week. I work outside and spend most of my day making sure the excrement doesn't hit the air-conditioner at my local pool. I have high cholesterol, apparently. TF??

Indiana Jones survives an atomic blast in a 1950s refrigerator. Bad ass. He also, apparently, perpetuates stereotypes of incompetent Pre-Colombian Mesoamericans. Hey! People! Before we go out of our minds and look to extra-terrestrials and Atlantians to explain marvelous works of art, let's make the logical conclusions. Just because we cannot recreate these skulls in laser-guided machines within a 10 minute window, doesn't mean its impossible. It just means we're impatient self-righteous bastards who still refuse that ever-fleeting conclusion. What was it again. Oh, yeah. Logic.

I was watching CNN in the morning, because I'm a masochist. They covered (in the utmost brevity) a story of a 3rd grader who performed the heimlich in his school cafeteria. They covered it, went to a commercial, mentioned that Hillary still hadn't called it quits, went to a commercial again, and covered the 3rd grader story again. I have never pushed an on/off button with such frustration and intensity in my life.

I'm in desperate need of one of my treasured and captivating many-houred conversations into the wee hours of the morning.

In about two weeks I'll be half a world away, in peaceful and insane bliss with a group of archaeologists, waking up to a rooster at 5:30 am and spending my day on a mountain.

Perspective

I saw a particularly gruesome and vulgar episode of South Park that raised the bar on brilliant satire. The episode was about Britney Spears and was a commentary on celebrity obsession culture in the US media today. Britney is stalked throughout the episode and blows off the top 90% of her head. For the rest of the episode she is hustled around by a 4th grader (tongue loose) to escape te glare of the media. Nevertheless, not only does the media but an entre group of people finds Britney and shines the spotlight so bright that she collapses and dies. A conspiracy is revealed in the end in which US culture is compared to Mesoamerican cultures in which human sacrafice was done peridoically. It is said that we breed these helpless (hapless?) celebrities solely to destroy them in the end and maintain order.

What I find brilliant about thsi episode is not only the brillaint commentary about how obsessed with celebrity lives we are, but the comparison to human sacrafice. The creaters disregard any notion of political correctness and call out the hideous aspects of our culture in an explicit way.

This kind of look at our culture opens the door for a self-reflexive analysis that exposes our own culture as bare as it can get. It draws connections. Suddenly we see our own ways of life compared to something that we might consider both immoral and gruesome and savage.

This came to mind earlier this evening as I read a refreshing blog about the raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints in Texas. Most are quick to make judgements about polygamy and "cults," but are these things we define as wacko notions really so different from our own? The idea of mongamy in the US is fairly debunked. Serial monagamy at best, we might say. The fact is we change partners often and often commit to several at a time (even while enveloped in this sacred institution that is "marriage"). Placing celebrities on a giant public pedistal (TV) and watching their fall is tantamount to human sacrafice. We regulalry mutilate our bodies by injecting poison into our face and chopping up are breasts to conform to culturally accepted norms of beauty. Yet we are disgusted by female circumcision. We are quick to judge Muslim religious states, yet refuse to see the strong and often violent influence of Christianity in our own political and national actions. Plenty of various states are criticized for human rights violations while we practice state-sanctioned murder (death penalty anyone?) on a daily basis.

Who is more savage?

What do we need for the future? Money, success, a democrat in the White House? No. Hope? Ha!

Perspective. We don't need to discard our ideals and practice my level of moral relativism, but we do need perspective. A perspective to understand context and continuity.

The Media, Inside Out

Well, it's been nearly a month since I last posted. I suppose my mind has been busy for more productive purposes.

Today, I shall focus on that brilliant entity that we all love, the media. The lovely Chelsea Clinton was at Butler University (my home) last week campaigning for her mother. Many are likely familiar with the incident that proceeded, the asking of the question about Monica Lewinsky. Likely because of a slow news day, this question and analysis of the question was everywhere.

I think that we students here have had an interesting opportunity to take a fine look at the media now. We have seen a simple little question blown into a huge national topic of discussion. We were also witness to all sorts of reaction to and reporting of this issue.

I think previous blogs here have shown my distrust and utter contempt for the media. Perhaps I'll reiterate anyway: far from informing us, I think the media does more to lull us into an ignorant acquiescence, where we are at the whims of emotion and sensationalism. And sensationalism, my friends, is exactly what we had here in the few days following the Chelsea question. I will not attempt to either refute or justify the question, it was asked and that's all we can really say about it. But suddenly the student who asked the question was being interviewed all over and CNN had the best political team on television picking over these words and Chelsea's words. For what? Because we need something to clamber over, something to divide, something to provoke empty rage and sympathy.

I also have another excellent perspective. I am a member of Butler's student newspaper, the Collegian. In one small report, the Associated Press reported that the student who asked the question was an editor for the Collegian. This is untrue, and I believe the confusion arose because one of our editors appeared next to the offending student on an interview. Nevertheless, we suddenly became the student's secretaries and we received hundreds of calls and emails from all the major new organizations as well as from citizens all around the country. Some were local Hoosiers who scolded us and said that they would never send their children to such a university. Others were full of praise for the student's bravery to ask the tough question.

What we see here is threefold. First, we see how an innocent mistakes occur can cause far-reaching consequences. I might also mention that our university was named incorrectly in numerous reports of Butler College, Butler in Pennsylvania and also Ball State University. Second we see the unruly reactions that we the people have been conditioned to have. How could this one student's moment of clarity (or lack thereof) in any way reflect on the education, environment and credibility of this institution? Were this the case, we must realize and take responsibility for the actions of our dear President. We didn't elect him you say? Well, we certainly did not choose the offending student to speak for our university. I am not contenting that we shouldn't have opinions and reactions to the things we see in the media, but we must consider the source of the material and why it has come to the media's attention in the first place before we attribute great value to our reactions. Finally, I combine these two insights and learn to further question the media in every way. We have seen how details become mixed up and changed, however minute they may be. After Chelsea left campus, life went on as normal, we certainly took note of the question, but we never expected to find it on national websites within hours.

Sensationalism. From a string of 20 words grows an unruly bush of misinformation, bad reporting, over-analysis and overreaction. In this world with the web, sensationalism breeds a careless sense of urgency, where it seems that fact checking is being passed up. I've gained new perspective on how realities are created within hours, realities that often vary drastically from creator to creator, person to person, news station to news station.

Think it out for yourselves. Realize that 90 percent of what you see on TV and read on any news source is bullshit, produced with corporate, political, personal and cultural agendas. Realize that very little of what is presented as fact, can be considered any sort of objective piece of information. For instance, from all the reports on the Chelsea question, I can assertain two things. One, that the question was asked. Two that Chelsea said what was quoted. That's about all the trust I put into this sort of thing. Any conclusions I come to are my own, perhaps to be shared, but not necessarily and certainly not to fill space on a dull day on the plant earth.

Perhaps most importantly, I beg that before we become emotionally charged over travesties, breeches of decency, tales of woe and of evil, that we consider the impact of our reactions, the far reaching impacts that your comments may have on a small collegiate newspaper bearing the brunt of a nation's outrage. These are consequences I have never considered before. Share the enlightenment.

Cuba Never Had A Chance

I've finished reading and article about this escalating situation in South America between Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. What infuriates me is the careless and harmful use of the words "rebels" and "Marxists." This is representative of a great irony in American history, that when we act as saviors and bringers of liberty, our legacy has brought just as much, if not more plight and struggle.
This is most clear in the case of US relations with South and Central America. Here we have funded ruthless leaders the likes of which we wish to dispose of in the Middle East. I think mostly of the ousting of Allende in Chile and the reign of Samoza in Nicaragua. Actions such as these were portrayed as valiant and necessary, but in hindsight can be seen as shallow, ill-informed and disastrous. Those two deeds resulted in much death and years of plight for the people of Chile and Nicaragua.
And to what do we owe these atrocities? Why none other than the glorious fight of communism. Indeed, actions in Central and South American during the cold war tended to support violent military leaderships in an effort to crush in popular socialist, or dare I say, communist movement.
US rhetoric during and after the Cold War despised communism. I have had people accuse me of being a communist as if it were an evil despicable name. Truly, these people haven't the foggiest idea of what communism or Marxism was about. Any mention of it is discredited due solely to rhetoric created by the US government. I think this is the greatest example of the anti-intellectual tendencies that have and are plaguing this country today.
Similar strategies have been deployed against Cuba. Fidel was hounded as a dictator, Cold War relic. We saw only of refugees fleeing the island and of the human rights violations. Many point to the poverty that has enveloped that nation.
I instead, being the good HumanihilSOCIALIST that I am, stand up for Cuba and mention some of its good qualities, benefits that only a socialized government can bring. I also point out that perhaps the reason Cuba as struggled so and has been forced into conservative actions is because of the ruthless, indeed heartless, neighbor to the North. We have had the embargo on Cuba since the Cold War and despite the fact that Communism and Democracy are no more a threat to each other than one cow is to another cow, we continue efforts to keep the little starving nation isolated from a rich world economy.
These are not philosophical principals we are talking about here. This is not a battle between good and evil. This is firstly about greed (that epitomizes capitalism) and political legacy. McCarthy is long dead and his movement mocked, but his legacy lives on and we dare not threaten the American way of life, indeed the free world at large, by working in cahoots with an evil communist nation.
Hugo Chavez is lumped into this category as well. His rhetoric against the United States is strong, offensive, but refreshing to me. In the news story I read he was portrayed only as a loudmouth preaching anti-American sentiments and harboring Marxist rebels. Without any detailed knowledge of the history of Colombia and US involvement there I cannot sort out this situation. However, for a general public trained to accept news documents as accurate, this has grave consequences of misinformation.
People may suffer in Cuba and Venezuela, but this really has nothing to do with Communism. Some call the communist experiment a mistake or failure. I say it never had a chance. Cuba never had a chance and Venezuela will likely go on suffering for decades because of the greedy actions of the US government and the US people. Had we attempted to understand Marxism and communism, we would likely sympathize with the dreams of an abused proletariat that wanted only to find equality. But no, we instead wanted to furhter cement our own inequalities and portray communism as evil and capitalism as good. I need not enter the discussion on weapons technology either which further complicates this mess.
Current rhetoric on dictators and communism and socialism is informed not by intricate understanding of social economic matrices and movements, but rather of soulless, empty patriotism based on the greed of the rich and powerful. Our knowledge and approach to situations that are often extremely delicate and deeply-rooted in local history, is greatly biased, sensationalist and shallow.
We fight evil and destroy evil men and empires. But in our wake we leave suffering military dictators funded by the US military as well as social and cultural chaos. God Bless America. We're gonna need it.

"There is no true America."

Is anyone else terrified that potential presidents are competing as to who is the most and truest conservative? I didn't know you could get a prize for being openly willing to persecute those who don't read the same books as you. To be willing to hunt down and murder men. To be uncompromising in the fight to preserve "America" whatever the hell that means.

What is "America." I problematize that word because America is a continent, and a rather big, on which lies many countries, with many people, many traditions and many languages. I continue to problematize the word because it really isn't anything concrete to being with. America is little more than a collective (and an exclusive collective at that) idea that doesn't reflect a certain truth or history, but rather reflects our modern world. Nationalism, dear friends, is not something inherent; it is not a logical modern outcome of history. There is no true America.

I hear a lot of talk about the Founding Fathers. I almost laugh out loud due to the absurdity that the, arguably, misguided men who founded this nation had a long term vision and idea of what "America" was, should be and will be. It is absurd the belief that the Constitution somehow holds sacred knowledge and fact about what America was and is. Our very recollection and recognition of the past is purely a creation of ourselves and a rationalizing of who we are and where we are today. Any idea of the past is informed by numerous parties, schools of though, personal motives, etc.

Sure the United States exists and has existed in the past. This is obvious. I'll go further, there are trends in action and image that link together different points in time. But this is not because there is some true "America" that keeps us from descending into anarchy, communism and Islam. Trends are simply durations of similar problems which elicit similar responses by similar people. These are subject to change and have changed and always will change. Can something really be considered "UN-American?" Is there some true America to conserve? Won't conservatives simply incite more change by purposely setting and altering America's great march through history?

Shouldn't we look for a leader who has the best ideas of how to help the dismal downward spiraling situation that we call America? I've asked a lot of questions so far. For an answer I'll say this: Adhering to (and believing it to be certain truth) a notion that we must conserve and protect an idea of America (that is as much at the whims of political climate as a leaf is to the wind) is not the way.

Waging War

Back to cynicism. I just this evening watched a documentary entitled, "No Way Out" about the Iraq War, and those responsible for the interminable chaos that has been wrought there. War and killing is one of a very few issues that I cannot really see a good side of. More accurately, I cannot easily defend it, there is no good side often. In any event, the pacifist within in was almost brought to tears at one point in the documentary. Partly good film making, partly deep disturbance.

The documentary had been showing the point where the UN sent in its best team to try and make some sort of difference. The team had set up outside of the US Green Zone and was making recommendations to the US team with input from Iraqis and experience in the war zone. At one point we are brought to a scene of a press conference inside the UN headquarters. One is led to believe and indeed I was that we would hear the UN speak out against the US and their means of waging war. Instead there is a blast and the screen goes dark. This bang caught me so off guard that I jumped up. My heart racing the next scene is one of chaos as a camera light turns on to people moving about rubble, those living staggering and bloodied move towards light. A bomb exploded just outside the UN headquarters and killed some 20-40 (no memory for details) people including the top official heading the operation. The UN played one of the few "good" roles in the film which mostly depicted evil being replaced by more evil and being resisted by still more evil. It was a heartbreaking moment.

The war was freshly on my mind because it had been a topic of discussion in the editorial board meeting of the student newspaper I work for. We were discussing our collective opinion on the latest effort to support the war, some 70 billion more dollars to fund the war through the rest of Bush's administration. I would even argue that such a sum of money should not be kept in one sum, but rather distributed almost imediately, but the thought of using so much money on killing is terrifying. Indeed, this sum would bring total war funding to nearly 800 billion dollars if not more. (The documentary uses a Harvard study that included economic costs that brings the total loss due to the war to several trillion dollars.)

We were split on saying whether this funding was good or bad. The bad obviously being that it supports killing and the good saying that we need to keep the troops safe until their job can be done. The best conclusion we could arrive at collectively was that the public should know exactly how the money is being used. I can't disagree with that, but it's really neither here nor there at this point.

Talk has now shifted to getting out of the situation in Iraq. Indeed, it is a very complicated situation complete withdrawal would be nearly as devastating and continued military force. I argue though, that the situation so far is such that we aren't pressured enough to consider true withdrawal. The administration is still getting all the money it needs and congress just signs the bills and goes back to bickering. I argue that cutting off financial support is the best way to end the war and not just because we couldn't support a presence there without funds.

What better way to force discussion about and ideas towards withdrawal methods than to be forced with an ultimatum. If this nation truly does not wish to wage war, to kill, to be killed then allowing funding for the war is ridiculous, even to "protect" the troops. The way the money is spent likely won't do anything to protect the troops, but merely give the administration further cushion to ride the inactivity of congress. By cutting off funding we would make the war finite and force the administration to really work. Suddenly there would be real deadlines. This is the best way to bring about the best exit strategy. If there is indeed a middle ground we will not find it until we refuse to wage war. Until all that we hold dear as "American" is on the line. As far as I'm concerned any funding for the war is akin to supporting the Bush administration in every decision it has made to date about the war. We may clarify the spending with excuses like protecting Iraqis, US troops and Middle East stability, but nonetheless we are still writing checks to support violent armed struggle.

This is the best answer any candidate could give me, not dates of removing troops not plans for exiting, but a refusal to fund war and to force this nation to come to terms, see reality and figure things out. There is no black and white in this situation, but we will never see the grays if we ride the wave of apathy and simply wait for the best action to present itself.

The Death Pedestal

My mind has been racked with a new capacity and has little time to dawdle on those seemingly meaningless nothings that prove so though provoking when we step back.

I had been every so slightly perturbed of late and I was struck today with the reason for it. No its not politics or the economy, though those are surely troubling things. Nay, it was one of the things I detest and fail to understand, celebrity news. It was this evening upon hearing of and seeing the reaction to the death of Heath Ledger that my mind clicked into gear.

Facebook is becoming prevalent in many ways and if used critically can offer broad insight into small networks. I say that to say this: I counted no less than 12 facebook related statuses that mentioned and mourned the death of this actor. To this I had a series of responses. First: This has no bearing on me. Second: Its caused a media storm and is already provoking public debate (People care.). Third: Am I emotionally dead so as not to be affected by a sudden death of a talented actor? Finally: No, I am not emotionally dead, perhaps (and forgive the vanity), perhaps just far more broad minded.

Death is no stranger to the human race; people die daily, hourly, even minutely. Old people die, rich people die, young people die, poor people die, babies die, fat, thin, black and white. This makes death no less tragic on individual and situation bases, but I doubt that so many know Heath so well as to truly feel sorrow. Still, on daily news coverage I see reports of shooting and death. And I say, "this happens all the time, why does it make news?" Perhaps a better question would be why do certain deaths make news? The media and the general population seem to pick and chose which deaths matter most and such choices are often fleeting and trivialize a deeply saddening occurrence.

Celebrity news and gossip is perhaps the most perverted sort. People spend much of their time and sometimes even lives to being completely in the know about, ultimately, meaningless people. (I use meaningless not to downplay success and influence in certain spheres but rather to question their being arbitrarily "made" as significant.) People even become significantly insignificant from studying insignificant people. (Have fun with that one!) I see Britney Spears on covers of magazines that have no qualms of exploiting her downfalls. I hear people feeling sorry for her. But should we seek out the miserable and mourn death, or celebrate that the reason we seek out exciting news of death and misery is because of the large absence of it in our daily lives? Perhaps it makes us feel human and gives a sense of community. But have we gone so astray as people that, in order to feel human community, we must seek out the terrible in the lives of the insignificant?

Heath's death is no less sad and tragic and sudden to me, but merely put in perspective with the millions of other, equally as affecting, deaths. I mean not that the world will be the same without him or that individuals will miss his presence. It is the act of placing, not only death, but certain "elite" deaths on a pedestal to be mourned and become topics of debate and conversation that I disagree with and hope to challenge.