Cultural Rupture

I thought I had become racist. For a second.

A Hispanic woman who did not have extensive English or seeming of much wealth (for lack of a better description) came into my store the other day and I immediately knew she wasn’t going to buy anything. I thought this conclusion came from me starting to breed that terrible mental illness known as racism. But It wasn’t. Of course, I work in a linens-and-furniture retail store and it’s my job to attend to customers in the store as soon as I see them and attempt to sell them merchandise….and I did. She told me she was looking for a circular dining table and we started on our pre-determined path of no fruition. I showed her all that we have, each piece individually costing as much as open heart surgery, and last but not least, the cheapest round table we had, the quality of which matched the price. She, of course, left without buying anything and I stood asking myself why her race was able to tell me that this would happen ahead of time. The answer ended up being that it’s a dynamic consequence of the fact that our store is in a neighborhood that can barely afford anything we sell.

If I had to guess, the President of the company picked the location of this store, a lower class Hispanic neighborhood in the South Bronx, because renting the property would be cheap. It’s built over a sewer which odorously makes itself known to anyone who walks inside. It’s built next to a river that’s so polluted the fish would have better chances of survival if people fed them opium everyday. There are as many rats in the store as there are customers and employees combined. Cheap electric and heating bills. Cheap water bills. All to upkeep a franchise made for the economic class that lives in the Hamptons, Long Island, Manhattan and New Rochelle, while keeping money in the capitalist’s pocket. Makes perfect sense to someone who just considers their own pockets in their decisions. And why should anyone be considerate of anything else when making decisions? Years ago, a decision like this wouldn’t have made any difference in whether the President of the store made his millions or not.

Circa 1999, citizens of the neighborhood were able to afford all of the ridiculously priced things the linens-and-furniture was selling. Italian sheet sets flew off the racks. Classy handmade chandeliers were pulled off the ceiling almost as soon as they were hung. Brand name leather sofas were bought up like iPhones. Two years later, a couple of planes consecutively crashed into the Twin Towers, making an economic vacuum that sucked loads of cash right out of American (and international, subsequently) circulation. A certain Texas-bred Fascist used the media, anger and sentiment over this to direct the country towards more violence. And the war started, with him spending $80,000,000 of taxpayers money per month on this. Then concepts like bad mortgages and housing bubbles bursting started coming into reality. And now here we are. The company is not making any real money, because it’s still busy trying to force high prices down people’s throats.

I’ve heard billions of complaints from customers about the smell of the sewer over which the building is built. Billions of inquiries as to whether the neighborhood is safe to walk through. Plenty of people who can’t make it to the store before closing time because they live and work in Long Island or Manhattan or New Rochelle and then have to travel to the Bronx to shop (without a car). Economically, if we cater to these areas, shouldn’t the store be located there? If we are stationed in the Bronx, shouldn’t the merchandise be affordable to Bronx residents? Then we’d have customers. Even people with money are complaining that things are too expensive, although this could be because they think everything in life should be cheap, regardless of the fact that it’s not really doing them any real damage to purchase things at the prices that are already there.

I originally questioned whether placing this business in poor neighborhood was right or wrong. A co-worker says that question really doesn’t apply to the situation at all since there really isn’t any obligation to the community you enter. I say that you have no business being in the community unless you’re supporting it somehow or are not really affecting it in any major way. Of course, selling furniture and bed sheets is not about any moral obligation at all, but I also don’t see the point of entering a culture without positively adding to it. We could talk about the company hiring local residents so that a few more of them would have some income, but that isn’t even the case.

The co-worker said that you cannot put your beliefs on other people, and that free will should not be violated. So, the company is free to posit itself wherever and run however it likes. This is true, but when you have this as the basis for all other thoughts, it leaves all kinds of room for immoral activity. People who mow down forests to setup corporations and test products on animals and “constitutionally bare arms” that end up in high shootings solely have the free will argument behind all they do. If the world is to heal somehow, good ideas need to be guiding those actions. Only thinking about how you would materially benefit is never a good idea.

Gender/Family Roles: The Death of the Spirit

The reason why crime still persists, not enough people allowed to be heroes.

So, at my job, one co-worker was telling me and some others about how strange he found the bond between two of his friends to be. They were in a relationship, and he was absolutely boggled at the fact that they still considered themselves to be together, but were not having sex. “What are they doing???” he exclaimed with a shrug. “They been goin’ out all that time, and they ain’t f*** not once?? Nah, if I’m dating a woman, she gonna give me some he** or somethin’. If we ain’t fu***n’, what am I there for?” Me and someone else tried explaining to him that perhaps they weren’t ready for that yet, or that it’s possible that in this day and age, some people still do just enjoy each other’s company. “What the hell are you talkin’ about? What am I hangin’ out with her for if she ain’t givin’ me no pu**y”

Some of you might be focused on the fact that he thought all of what he was referring to absolutely had to happen in a designated deadline of spending time with a woman. But I will say that that is no here or there, only because it’s just one of a list of things some people of each gender still strictly expects from the other.

I was just talking arguing with an old friend over dinner a couple of days ago about the gender specific things she wanted in her own future family. The husband is being charged with throwing money at the house from his job as a construction worker/businessman/one-man army that’s hired to destroy all socialist/communist nations and making himself dumb and muscle-bound in order to be a man (I’m totally exaggerating, she just said she was looking for someone to “protect and provide”). She as a wife would stop having an actual job and would instead stay at home to play with the kids, scrub the floors, cook dinner and be on demand to do what my unwitting co-worker was asking for in the first paragraph of this post (she really just said she’d be taking care of the house and child for a little while [but even after that stage of child-care is done, she'd only return to a "woman-friendly" job]). She, of course, slathered this shallow vision for herself with “I want a marriage founded on God, which is an indestructible foundation”. Ok, I agree with the foundation part, but what she’s describing is the annihilation of any kind of presence of a spirit in that home. What the co-worker shows is a complete negligence of humanity altogether.

Wars, depression, serial killing, famine, and 10 billion other rote forms of destruction to this world that I could list all persist partially because there really isn’t enough people looking at past their own biological makeup for potential for solution-building. They’re too busy sacrificing that potential to attend to infinitesimal-scale things in their own home or listening to jackasses like the Batman in the comic panel above and actually deeming it sensible ideology. Even in people who claim to be progressive, there is this illogical and toxic focus on what role this or that man/woman/alien/cat should be playing. Thus, I will venture forth and say that God is absent from this.

The strength and spirit of Christ was not in the title “Mary’s son“¹ or “Jew” or even “Man” for that matter. It was in the title “Carpenter”, “Teacher”, “Prophet” and “Son of Man (server of the community)”. It is in these roles that he worked fervently to be. He fostered his 12 confidants on the basis of their titles as “Disciples”, not “Men”. He disliked what the Pharisees represented as “Teachers of the Law”.

Thus, the answer to who we truly are, the places where are souls get their expression, does not lie in “man”, “woman”, “wife”, “husband”, “black dude”, “homosexual”, “parent”, “Iraqi”. They lie in the titles “astronaut”, “writer”, “teacher”, “janitor”, “dancer”. There is not a checklist of things you add to a relationship as a woman or a man, but there sure is a journey you can take someone on or go into as a preacher, a musician, a social worker, an origami folder, an environmentalist or fireman. These titles coming together in a relationship are where the Foundation of God can be found and the spirit thrives.

Notes:
1) Go ahead, click on the link in the words “Mary’s Son” above and tell me what you think of it. There’s more than one example of Christ following something bigger than himself and not simply his own bloodline.

Don’t Stunt*

So, this is very basic stuff. Save your money. But, upon thinking of Matthew 6 25-34, it seems to me that the act seeps much more in to the person existentially than I thought. However, in all reality, I wanted to post some new thoughts on the blog. So, if this is old hat, or boring hippie stuff, feel free to go somewhere else. Also, this is written through the eyes of a very cynical and sarcastic person. Thus, many things will be exaggerated to make points.

—————————————————————————————————————-

I’ve been wondering how the hell people are able to travel to London, Africa, Mars, Saturn and other solar systems on their spare time without a single piece of copper to their name. I’ve read of novelists (actually just two, “Shantaram”’s Gregory David Roberts, who was an Australian criminal and probably hitched every plane or boat ride he got, and one of my favorite authors, Roberto Bolaño) who have been all over the world while being stark-raving poor. Everyone assumes it’s in the drive to get more money. To get a higher paying job. To rob more banks per week or hack a few more checking accounts. Win more hands at the AC or LV crap tables. Play more lottery tickets. Sell more silly, insubstantial hip-hop songs for download to the Sidekick/Facebook teen ignorance-is-bliss masses. But the ability to travel or live an enjoyable life doesn’t necessarily come from getting more money, but spending less of the amount you already receive.

A job isn’t disqualified as a good job because it doesn’t pay you enough. I mean, with this pending, you can get a second one or marry rich (I joke. Don’t do that). But if you’ve found your niche in the labor world, I’d highly advise against leaving it for any reason other than it not being your niche anymore. Nowadays, your job is the primary source of survival, and if you found one that you like and is about something good, that is an occupation you should grip with the strength of The Hulk. Yes, there is a lot of people who are just glad to have a job…..or at least they say they are. But even they are picky at what they want to do. I know people at the absolute bottom of the barrel that do not just do any piece of labor handed to them, even when it seems like they may be good at it. A luxurious lifestyle of choice is infused in all of us. Even the homeless and poor refuse food they don’t want, although there’s obviously something to be said about this².

Anyway, I think that the solution to this is a revolt against economic entities that try to corner society’s needs and then charges top dollar for it. Against corporations and companies that do their best to employ the most amount of labor for the least amount of money. And that is to throw the luxurious lifestyle away.

I was thinking in terms of being able to depend less and less on that job as time passes, as well as you developing a strength of spirit and mind over the urges of the flesh.

A luxurious lifestyle can consist simply of being able to buy a huge bottle of alcohol every two days, or taking a taxi everywhere you go (I’m sorry, this is not a wasteful practice I understand, so it will get the label of ’stupid’ from me). Or upkeeping the rims and soundsystem on your Lincoln Navigator, making the value of your car skyrocket over the cost of your house or child (I joke). Of course, you can keep this lifestyle if you’re rich and can afford to pay $10,000 for customized Snickers bars. Per day. Per meal even. But this easily permeates everything in your life, and pretty soon you won’t think of/do anything for yourself, which explains many of the upper-class figures you see on T.V., devoid of basic wisdoms such as tying your own shoes and knowing what a Native American or Chicken of the Sea is. You create your own prison of comfort in many ways. You stay where you are. You keep doing what you keep doing, thinking what you keep thinking. You do not grow. Even if you go somewhere else foreign, it’s only with the presupposition that there is personal space for you to keep being you.

Christ says not to worry about the clothes on your back or if food will come. Others will tell you that this means to just throw yourself out into the world and be reckless with your own resources and don’t worry. Just go outside and do what is that you do and, if you have a faith, a huge Caucasian hand will smack you with a box of millions and say “here you go!” to replenish your filthy lifestyle, and then leave. Others will also tell you that it goes against logic or faith to worry. Technically, it may go against faith, but this is as expected. A being who is omnipotent would expect you to be this way exactly. I think the message is, if you are doing what you’re supposed to be doing, investing some of your time in what you’re supposed to be investing in, good fruit will come. Be focused on the grace and talents God has given you, the culture of sustainability, of community, and others things that will appear in the “The More You Know” advertisements on NBC, and our wealth, particularly in the spiritual aspect but in others as well, will grow. Forget the $5 frappuchino every other day and just get a regular coffee. Forget eating out every week and eat out every other week. Just stop buying sneakers or shoes if your closet already has at least 12 pair that you haven’t worn yet (there is no good reason at all why someone would keep this up. NO good reason). At the same time, pursue the opportunity to be something in the world.

Notes:
*Reference to the song “Stunt 101″ by the rap group G-Unit.
1) I am not at all saying that this is some sort of excuse to not attend to them. If anything, we should learn some sort of discernment concerning this. I was “dissed” two Sundays ago when I offered a woman on the street food and she looked at me like I was asking if I could probe her brain for Iraqi government secrets, then said “no thanks” and immediately went back to sleep. Regardless of how poor or down someone is, we must still respect their choices. Also, just because someone is without a job doesn’t mean they should just take whatever is handed to them. Makes no sense to work at something that is absolute, downright torture. Or demeaning. I cannot blame anyone for wanting to keep their dignity over surviving. I can be ok with judging someone who tosses away morals in order to make a living.

Technology = Spirit?

A week or two back while at work, the screen on my G1 broke. It’s an slide open-and-close phone, as you would see if you clicked on the link I provided in the G1 phrase in the previous sentence. I’m not really sure what happened, nor would it be important. When it was closed, the phone would freeze. I’d have to turn it off and back on in the open position to get it to operate: a situation that immediately called for a replacement. I felt a sharp despair.

Although I’m not socially networking 24/7, I felt thrust out of all important loops in life because I no longer (really) had access to Twitter and Facebook on my phone. At least until the 3 to 5 business days passed before receiving the replacement unit. I tried to tell myself that not being able to see the address of whoever’s birthday party/barmitzvah/goat-sacrifice event I had that night was a justifiable reason to be genuinely pissed that my phone died, but it was of no use. I was immaturely angry and felt helpless. I started to ponder what this suggests about our generation, or today’s world, especially in the light of T-Mobile representatives rotely telling me “yeah, I hate when that happens, too. You feel like you’ve lost your whole life. Let’s get that fixed as soon as possible.” I thought that the beginning of all those hyper sci-fi worlds we’ve read of in Philip K. Dick narratives and Neal Stephenson writings has very much arrived.  Meaning that everything that has even the slightest importance in worldly matters will only fill space on the internet, and will be as tangible as you imagine them to be as you stab the keys on your computer’s keyboard.

Anything that we have to affirm in this world will continually/ultimately be filtered through a wall post, or someone else’s MP3s on our homepage, or comments on someone’s status or a tagged picture. I’m sure the technological avenues will continue to develop. But, speaking as a person who is not a fan of live interaction with people, there is something to be said for it……….

Survival or Life………

Afore named practice, perfectly captured.

Matthew 6:25-34

Very interesting. A bit more depressing and angering, but still interesting I guess.

Currently, the newspapers tell me the filthy Repubs are fighting and protesting Obama over him wanting to use Universal Health Care, tax medium and large employers who do not provide health care to their employees, and use a single payer health care system¹, due to it seeming quite “socialist” in structure. People are purportedly protesting at town halls, outdoor meetings and the like. The liberals are angry with the concessions he’s proposing or actually making, I don’t remember which.

Meanwhile, at my job, I had a conversation with my idiot Communist Eastern European manager. During a sale we’re to have, she expressed that she wished employees were forced to work from some ungodly hour in the morning until 8 or 9 at night, always standing and running around to force customers to buy merchandise they obviously can’t afford, without breaks or anything in between.

I told her what she said was disturbing. She said “my problem” was that I don’t go after every opportunity to make money, not aggressive enough, because of morals or whatever (her words). I’m supposed to be all about² survival. All this from a woman who needs help just pulling paper from copy machine jams, and has had more complaints from customers than I can count. All this to me, who probably has been working here before she learned how to spell the term “labor laws”, who has never been greedy or aggressive about sales and does just fine.

I told her her problem is that she thinks we’re all supposed to be a bunch of bloodthirsty creatures clawing at each other’s throats for every possible 2 cent sale we could force out of people. She says that’s not true, and then tells me to forget what she said and just do whatever I want, which is basically the opposite of everything she wants me to do. I said ok, getting on that right away.

Everybody wants to survive (to kick others aside to make sure they have enough money for keeping up appearances), but no one wants to live (to help each other). I’d bet money that you’d find this paradigm at the root of each and every single problem in the world.

1) A system where money is taken from our taxes, collected by the government or some public administrative service, and distributed nationally amongst the doctors. This is instead of the doctors relying on the patients directly to make their salaries.

2) You do need to survive, but the struggle for individual survival should never take precedence over living your life (which for the idiots, does not simply mean just breathing, but affirming your being).

Individually Individualized Individualism

¹³“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say the Son of Man is?’ ¹⁴They replied, ’some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ ¹⁵‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’ ¹⁶Simon Peter answered. ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ ¹⁷Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven.

–Matthew 16: 13-17

“You critics like to criticize,
but couldn’t visualize,
individual’s lives
through a criminal’s eyes,”

–Eminem¹

So, I am once again reminded of a general rejecting ethic of individualism in society and in my church. A little while back, I wrote about a woman I went on a few dates with who claimed to be individualist, but was not this at all. And even in my church, though the majority of the congregation² means well and does indeed welcome other people’s presences and participation in events and services (their hearts are correct), there is a tiny, tiny piece of group mentality that still, by nature, rejects assertions/notions that seem to stray too far from what Christ is about. Please note that I said “seem to”…..to them, that is.

There is also this infesting phenomena of cliques, groups of people that work (consciously or subconsciously) towards being socially exclusive, forming in the church. Understandably, the church is located in Manhattan, a city completely symbolic of what I’ve described in Note 2. And so, being surrounded by an infinite number of things strange and new³, it would be relief to find people that are from the same background and singular culture as you are and to stick with them for comfort. Perhaps the run-off stream of emotion from this is the fear of judgment or persecution or mockery or condescendence they’d receive from putting themselves out there to people of cultures that are different. Perhaps they’ve been hurt in the past or have pieces of personal history that they believe would bring public shame or mockery. Whatever it is, their situation is obviously lacking the notion of God’s glory and Grace, key elements in individualism. In addition, the church administration is working for the place to be of inclusivity that welcomes people of all viewpoints and emotions, and the cliques hurt this goal directly.

But I digress. If secular readers have not flipped to another web page by now, I thank you for you time. So far, it appears to me when the general person thinks of individualism, they picture either the inconsiderate, destructive capitalist who just goes around stomping, stealing and cutting through everyone else possessions to make a large stash of their own (for a great visual of this, play “BioShock” on the XBox 360. Or look at George Bush). Or they picture the noisy, emo anarchist who works to blow ideals into ash for the sole purpose of causing discomfort, confusion, despair or even pain. Now, while these caricatures unfortunately do exist, it is ridiculous to paint this picture on each and every single person who wants to use a bit of your resources for another end⁴ or to cause you to look back at yourself and ask questions. The rational individualist does these things for good reason or to good ends.

The point of individualism is to go against the mind that treats every man, woman, Black, Chinese or Australian with the same broad stroke of human application. To end the monumentally absurd notion that what applies for one white man, one Indian woman, one black boy, one purple alien, etc. applies for all of that biological breed. ⁵ Individualism recognizes in each and every single person their talents, struggles, grief, complexes, and guides them to a better place based on those elements.

Somebody could argue: “well, if this is done according to this person, and that is done according to that person, and everyone is just doing their own thing, how would there be any unified whole to progress?” But just because each and every individual existential case is recognized and supported doesn’t mean that there can’t be a transcending whole that people adhere to. Individualism recognizes the key talents in each person that adds to that whole. So, the first person can focus on the fact that 50 Cent’s lyrical skill is that of a drunk baby sheep with autism. The second person could argue that selling C.D.s with nothing on them but Bill O’Reilly ⁶ listing hundreds of ways in which people can kill themselves with homemade poison would probably do better for the sake of Hip-Hop as a culture than what 50 Cent is doing. The unified whole they both contribute to is the fact that 50 Cent has no business on anyone’s television, radio, wall, movie screen or mind.

Up there in the book of Matthew, Simon Peter was glorified because he came to know God himself, and not through a bunch of images and concepts that other men told him. He didn’t tell him to talk to the most voluminous or popular group that worships Me and make sure you do things the way they do it. He said He was proud that Simon came to know God himself. We should all be doing the same, and respecting and learning from each other what the other has “come to know”. Perfect world peace or whatever will not come immediately after adopting this approach, but there will then be a tangible welcoming community.

Notes:
1) The point is, he painted the picture of a group of people who could place themselves in other people’s shoes. You can take or leave the “criminal” part.
2) This is not necessarily their fault. I, myself must always remember that they come from a more culturally traditional and homogenous background and atmosphere where values and emotions and thoughts are handed to you by elders to have. Where as I was raised in the city, a thriving thing that is culturally varied by hundreds or even thousands of shades, and values and emotions and thoughts are ascertained through self-discovery.
3) Another difference: the rural person is usually encouraged to stay away from the “strange and new”, while the urban person knows that if there is to be peace in the Metropolis, the strange and new must be embraced.
4) I speak of the NGOs or the Non-Profits who want to use your money to preserve a particular arctic area or rainforest or species, or perhaps campaign in Civil Rights.
5) In addition to the note in my last post, this ethic could also be argued as part of the basis for violent insurrections, revolts and school shootings.
6) Right-wing political commentator, author, T.V. show host, and all-around waste of time.

The Village Taken

Alternate Title: The Teacher’s Advocate

I’ve recently read a most curious and refreshing post by a Brazen Teacher some days back about, for the most part, group parenting. It talked about the formative years of the child and how it¹ learns what it lives. Indeed. It talked about how many people go into parenting thinking that it will be easier than it looks: perhaps because of some imagined “oneness” with the child, perhaps because they think children will be more obedient to their friendlier approach, perhaps because they think raising a child and assembling a Lego Castle are one and the same². The post spoke on how this consequence reflects in the formative years. Conclusively, the article spoke on how the tribal groups in New Guinea, Africa, perhaps South America or a few places in un-modernized China or The Golden Triangle³ are perhaps doing something right in having the village raise the child instead of the parents alone. Now, she made quite the point and I think the argument was very well put together. But, as always, a few details not mentioned in the post resulted in this Devil’s Advocacy to the vision she proposed.*

The village could raise the child, instead of the job being solely on the parent. And it’s a lovely little sentiment for the people of the community to share that responsibility. Perhaps then, young parents can just shoot them right out and expect everyone else to pick up the slack, since the village would look forward to the opportunity to do so. The article does say that “Children are not [completely] taken away from their biological parents, but they are not left with them to fend for themselves either”, but in today’s world and generation, where becoming a parent is envisioned as weighty a prospect as putting together model airplanes⁴, when the full reality of child-rearing hits that young or naive couple, I’m pretty sure they’ll resort to letting the community take over the job. We could then ask, if the potential parents are going to do that, why even bother having the children at all? That is psychological guesswork for another time, but the scenario does happen.

Also, village parenting would work in a world where every adult was a properly trained potential parent and had room in their lives, emotionally and physically, for the task. This is not that world. Of course, it is that kind of world for the New Guinea and African tribes, but I’ll get to that later. We must assume the village is unified enough to be a clear, solid presence in the child’s life and all of its constituents on some sort of level with each other. They can all teach the child different things about life or a different skill or any kind of range of things, but most importantly, disciplinary measures will have to be shared by most if not all. You can’t have the child getting one message here and another there. But, since one adult believes in hitting their child and another doesn’t, another believes the child shouldn’t risk hurting themselves in the playground and another thinks the child should explore, and another thinks the child should pick up labor as early as possible and another thinks they should focus on their studies, etc. ad nauseum, the “village parent” would self-destruct before it even began, since the variance in message is inevitable.

How does the village parent effect the child’s formative years? Well, in one aspect, if that unity were to be achieved, I imagine it would end up looking something like a small rural town or a commune in its group psychology, which in turn would destroy the child’s drive to rationally search for the true self/individual. In these kind of social environments, the focus is usually on preserving inherited values, making sure to practice customs, instilling and conserving a specific set of beliefs, so on and so forth. Since the elders and adults of the community have, by default, more experience and embodiment of these things, any kind of purpose or passion for the growing child will be emptied and replaced by respect, worship and the carrying out of the will of the elders, which the child eventually grows up to be, for the sole purpose of pointlessly repeating the process in the future. It becomes much less like a vibrant and vivid person or people raising a new human being to embrace life, and more like robots gearing and tooling another for future self-replacement. Any venture out of set programming will result in dire consequences to be discerned in another discussion.⁵

I haven’t bothered to go into issues such as there not being any kind of real source of intimacy for the child or other ways this affects its formative years because in the end, I think those points are really just derivatives of everything said here. And while I will state again that I don’t think what the Brazen Teacher suggests is wrong per say, I will say that I disagree with it. I do not believe the Village Parent can work or is an answer to the problem of new parents facing hardships. As implied in the last paragraph, the tribes of New Guinea and Africa have specific ideals, values, practices and beliefs for the child. They have a specific envisioned being they want that child to be, for the sole purpose of that child one day teaching their own child to be the same thing, so that the cycle continues to roll……..albeit with no real direction. The village may coax the biological parent’s responsibility, but will the child be raised right?

Notes:
*For the sake of the argument, the rest of this post will not refer to a literal village, but rather any kind of geographical community or group.
1) Yes, I will call the child “it”. It is hypothetical and has no gender. So shut-up.
2) In all cases, the parent deserves each and every moment of rude-awakening, ball-busting hardship in parenting that God wills. As a matter of fact, I pray for the experience to be downright traumatizing. Why? Because the worst kind of parents are the ones who likes to sugar-coat life to keep themselves happy instead of addressing problems like they’re supposed to.
3) The article just mentions New Guinea and Africa. I wrote all the other places.
4) Meaning in this generation, both of those things have become something people could just do in their spare time and not really take that seriously.
5) Now, I’m not saying that isn’t possible for someone to be traditional and pursue rational self-interest at the same time. I’m sure it’s done often. But even more often, [today's] culture clashes with tradition. I will also venture forth to say that environments of this form are what produce school shootings, but I digress.

Porn: This is not Invasion of the Body Snatchers

So, recently, in my life, there have appeared a string¹ of attacks on that most profuse film genre, known to you and me as pornography. A guest pastor at my church spoke a sermon on how it is an epidemic. Of how sex is a majestic and awesome thing, but only when had in the right context. He pointed to passages and symbols in the Bible of how sex symbolized a holy union. A holy act. Elsewhere, a blogger (who is not Christian) had written about how she was disgusted by porn. Disgusted by the fact that it was so accessible on the internet despite the fact that the sites ask if the user is of age². She blamed porn addiction and the appeal to sex involving vomiting and crapping and pissing³ and probably World War 3,4 and 12 all on porn. I think the public consensus is that I, as a Christian, am supposed to just wholesale agree with all of this. But that principle, just like the beliefs listed above, ventures into weakness and stupidity. It’s porn, not Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

There’s no alien seed or hypnosis or secret brain-altering message in porn that forces people to continue to watch it and send its film makers money⁴. People do that themselves. You’re not going to turn into a genital-crazed fiend if you pass by a flyer or a poster in the street displaying a 3/4 naked woman or man. You give that attention to it yourself. The outrage and stomping piles of DVDs and videotapes⁵ in the street all comes from you. Any kind of support or attention or addiction porn gets is all in the people.

First, I disagree with the notion of imposing on someone’s free will. If people want to go make and star in porn, we must let them. We can inform them that it’s not very productive or moral, but it is ultimately still their decision. Priests or idiot conservatives or whoever going to shut down studios in the San Fernando Valley or wherever they make porn will only give cast and crew members an even more vigorous drive to produce films somewhere else, and will give the public a greater interest in what all the hype is about. Ultimately, one must find what they’re doing wrong within themselves, not because someone else is repeatedly beating their moral values over their heads.

Secondly, interest in the……unconventional things porn portrays does not wholly define the “degradation” of humanity. This belief would stem from the basic belief that there is only one or a few ways that people should enjoy themselves. Technically, (preferably) after a couple becomes married, they can do whatever they feel. There is no on-the-book, official way for intercourse. I’m not saying that people should go into the psychotic⁶ or exhibitionist, but there is some media of a sexual nature that may actually produce interest or drive or “spice” in the couple’s sensual life.

And last, addiction to porn is not the pornographer’s fault, unless you can prove the existence of the elements I listed in the second paragraph above. Everyone is different: has different reactions to different things, experiences things and views things differently. I was having a talk with the security guard at the store I work at, who is a staunch Christian, and he was telling me that sexuality is ruining man. He was saying that it was sinful and destructive to the Kingdom of Heaven when a woman appears dressed in the amount of clothes that would probably equal someone else’s washrag, because it tempts the man. Now, these things are bad, but the fault of the man’s temptation doesn’t fall into the woman’s lap. That connection is made willfully by the man himself. It is his own task to defeat those thoughts and urges, not to say to himself it’s ok for them to be there because he’s a man and he’s going to do it when these situations arise. Personally, and then ultimately, my attention is not kept to something that is not intellectually or emotionally in-depth in some form or fashion. I believe it is man’s fault for not having this general standard; the addicted person fault for not giving themselves this viewpoint or visual range.

Porn may be highly immoral, but it is not to be blamed for any sexual deviancy on society’s part. We let it into our households and let it stay on our televisions. The parents themselves hold the responsibility and risk of letting children’s curiosity carry them when they don’t educate them or keep a sharp watch over their own child’s life⁷. In the presence of a truly elite and progressive society, porn’s exposure would be reduced to some far off nook or cranny of the world. But who’s fault is it that this society is not [truly] elite and progressive?

Notes:
1) By string I mean two people have talked about it.
2) All you have to do is say, you’re 21 and they’ll let you in.
3) This purportedly shows how degraded today’s humans are.
4) Why people are doing this when you can get plenty of it for free on the internet is beyond me. Perhaps there is some sort of nobility in paying the studios for their “work”. But I digress……and also don’t endorse.
5) These things still exist?
6) Whatever that means.
7) The world does not bend to your family’s life. It shouldn’t ignore it, but it shouldn’t bend either.

"Gran Torino"

So, here, Clint bring us a modern, more dramatic version of “Dirty Harry”. My assumptions of this intent are evidenced a bit by the fact that there was a long advertisement for the “Dirty Harry” collection, meaning all 5 parts (I thought there was only one movie!) on DVD prior to the film starting. When I first seen the trailer for this, I thought it looked to be a bit weak, sloppy and self-indulgent, especially for Mr. Eastwood. After watching it, I found all three of these traits to be present, but generally it was very good film. Racist, so I thought, but very good.

Walt Kowalski¹ (Eastwood) is a recently widowed Korean War veteran living in a Michigan suburb. He dreads the day-to-day interaction with his cold and distant family of sons trying to rush him to a funeral home and granddaughters waiting to steal his stuff when he dies. But things start to change when his life crosses path with the lives of a Hmong family (from which country it is never stated) next door when he stops their boy, Thao, from trying to steal his Gran Torino in the name of gang initiation. From then on, the bitter, gruff and grizzly voiced Kowalski² finds his peaceful life of upkeeping his house and sitting on the porch with his dog more and more interrupted, but his connection with the Hmong family more and more strengthened.

The story ended up being a lot more in-depth and substantial than I expected it to be. I guess, the action hero in his retired life would be the proper theme to labeled this with. Eastwood’s character still has that “make-my-day…..punk” energy, but now he’ll only put a fresh hole in your head after he cleans his gutters, sweeps the porch, mows the lawn and fixes a neighbor’s sink. A man constantly trying to find purpose for himself, big or small, in his day and age which takes place after a larger purpose for himself has incinerated to ashes and blown away in the wind³. All of this came across with great clarity and grabbed my sympathies immediately.

However, I think, when it comes to filming stories about foreign Asians, Eastwood cannot bring himself to see them as…..you know…..actual human beings or characters⁴. I did not see “Letters To Iwo Jima” but I was reading somewhere how his filming of the Japanese side of WW II in the story was a bit unfair and bias. In “Gran Torino”, besides his character being a “lovable racist”, there’s no particular bias or anything but the Hmong characters are severely under-developed. It could be the lack of experience amongst the two main Hmong youths, Sue and Thao (this is the first time both actors, Bee Vang and Ahney Her, appeared in a film professionally), but it seemed to me like Eastwood was the only one following an actual script. The actors had no scenic rhythm, often repeated the same lines over and over, stumbled over each other in performance and had no real characteristics. Sue’s intelligence peaked out a little bit, but Thao was a sloppy character altogether. In one scene he’s afraid to speak up after being repeatedly insulted, in another he’s taking it upon himself to touch things that aren’t his, in another he’s making demands and treating elderly people like they’re fellow teenagers. In addition to this, there was about zero sympathy for his character. Yes, we know he did not have any direction in his life prior to meeting Kowalski, but he was nothing. Didn’t like to play sports or read or write or….just…..didn’t have anything going for him. Like he was some sort of……….Hmong stand-in instead of an actual person.

Generally, the movie was really good, though I would not say it was Eastwood’s best. The whole duration of the movie (which is also the same amount of time Kowalski’s face is on camera), it seemed to me that Eastwood just wanted to prove to the world that a sprinkle of take-no-sh** gunslinger still existed in his soul. The entire cast just lived in his shadow, and nothing even seemed to be of any real importance unless he was involved. A little self-indulgent if you ask me, but still worth watching.

Notes:
1) -sky, makes me think of Buchinsky (Charles Bronson) for some reason.
2) Right. Never seen Eastwood play this role before. Never.
3) “Dust in the wiiiiiiind, all we are is dust in the wiiiiind” – Kansas – “Dust In The Wind” (1977)
4) Well……I mean…..he is Conservative…..but I digress…..

Seriously Joking. Just kidding, but for real……..

Hello. I’m the Clandestine Samurai. You may have seen me in such films as the Oscar^Ⓡ Award winning masterpiece “The Curious Sword of Benjamin Samurai”, the slapstick comedy “Dude, Where’s my Blade?” or the action-packed thriller “Brokeback Mountain 2: Breakin’ Backs with a Vengeance, Bitch!”. Studies have shown that, in today’s society, a very large amount of witty and graphic jokes go clean over the heads of a large portion of the young and old. Great pieces of irony, sarcasm and satire are delivered with great rhythm and tone, but unfortunately do not touch the funny bone of most of this population and symbolically go speeding to a crash landing right on the cutting floor. However, studio execs have paid me $3000 and a Ziploc bag of Nicaraguan Brown¹ to appear in this instructional blog post and tell you a little bit about joke structure and mentality. So please, sit back, be enlightened, and aid our mission to reduce the abortions of fresh snarky joke babies.

No, but seriously. It’s a bit of a let down, disappointment and question of general intelligence when I hear someone or myself be sarcastic in everyday life and it gets lost on whatever audience is present. I’m not saying they have to laugh, but there is a sharp absence of evidence that shows that the person or people understood that a joke was just told. At the same time, or, on the other side of the coin, there are people who express things that are absurd or insanely stupid by default, but take themselves very seriously. My guess is that people who are exposed to the latter situation train themselves to be sensitive to people’s various personalities, and so mistake sarcasm for someone being serious. But both situations are funny. Confused? Bored? Genocidal? Let me give you an example:

Picture a woman sitting somewhere: a park bench, a bus stop, the throne of 18th century Japan. Now picture a man approaching said woman and saying “Girl, you look so good that I want to start a magazine just to put your face on every issue, and then be my only subscriber!” or “Girl, you must be a potent seed, because you make the tree grow in my forest reaaaaaal quick.” or, “Girl, you could be the violent video game that makes me shoot up my high school anyday!” Now, this man could be quite serious or he could be playing around. We don’t know his intent. But we do know that in both cases, it is perfectly ok to laugh.

When things are this exaggerated, you must automatically turn off the serious switch. You have to have the I.Q. of a glass of Jim Jones’ Kool-Aid² to think a serious conversation can start like this. I mean, a serious convo can start from anything, but you cannot consider yourself attempting to start one with those lines. The man can be very serious when saying these things, but then you’d have to find comical the fact that he thinks living beings other than badly written aliens from any given Star Trek episode actually talk like this to each other prior to engaging each other socially.

So, I guess the point here is, when exaggeration is present, it can be considered funny. As a few skillfully literary artists³ have illustrated, sometimes comedy even appears in the tragic and devastating. But then the comedy is in the fact that someone else thinks they are logical in their own exaggeration. So, take this bit of wisdom with you for start of your next day or even now. Look at the people around you. Examine the ironies and paradoxes, the strange and bizarre, the so-empty-it’s-absurd, and remember, you have permission to laugh.

Surgeon General’s Warning: This is unless, of course, someone is telling you they are going to kill themselves or are about to do a suicide bombing or something, then you help or seek help. Double unless they’re telling you they’re about to do this because they ran out of staples or pens or they lost an important “Halo 3″ tournament, then you can definitely laugh. But make sure it’s short and you seek help right afterwards.

Notes:
1) A type of marijuana I totally just made up. Feel free to replace with: Panama Red, White Widow, Lumpy Bullet, Cyclopian Green or Nashville Dirt.
2) Jim Jones – the leader of the “People’s Temple”, an organization in the 1950’s in Guyana (South America) infamously known for performing a mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. Over 900 members killed themselves.
3) I want to say Shakespeare, but no particular work comes to mind. Chuck Palahniuk is certainly a master of this, though.