Conformist Nonconformity

"Well, why do you go out of your way to look like a bum?

Wouldn't it be more of an act of rebellion if you didn't spend so much time buying blue hair dye and going out to get punky clothes? It seems so petty. You wanna be an individual, right? You look like you're wearing a uniform. You look like a punk."

 -- "Brandy", SLC Punk!

The above quote, I think, defines the very reason I've failed to ever truly identify with any subsect of society; there are so many subcultures, each concerned only with their capacity to differentiate between themselves and "those people" (whoever "they" may be) that we forget that to seek individualism requires an effort of the mind, of a free-thinking self embodied not within a certain fashion, a certain musical taste, a certain communal passtime. We become so very caught up with making sure that we're not something we wouldn't want to be that we forget what it is we do want to be; we cast aside the true flavor of ourselves, replacing it with shock-value driven adherence to something that marks us as being something else -- forgoing any sense of satisfaction that should be gained from that same self-expression. We engage ourselves in efforts to identify with a group of people that we feel are, on some level, like us, either physically, emotionally, mentally, or through whatever shared trait we can cling onto in the hopes that we're not alone in the world, in the universe, that we have this connection with people as forged through the chains that bind each of us to our own personal indulgences.

The most famous expression of this desperate irony comes in the phrase, "I want to be different, just like everyone else" -- something I first encountered in the 1990s when the cynical mood of the grunge era took hold. This became a motif amongst those disenfranchised youths who sought to leave their mark not on the world, but on themselves; they recognized the futility of the other subcultures around them adopting their own uniform, and they developed a uniform of their own based on noncompliance with the existing templates; in so doing, though, they found themselves trapped by the same lack of identity-crisis as all the rest, and this seemingly-inescapable truth brought with it the ennui that has afflicted the formative years of each subsequent class of fresh young faces waiting to find their place in the not-so-hallowed halls of our education system, spurring the resurgence in more recent days of the shock-heavy, overdone uniforms of the new social strata -- the neo-punk, the emo, the nerdcore, etc -- now reliant upon not a sense of individualism, but an intense dedication to the masses, to the culture with which one finds oneself identifying.

Each generation of humans (okay, I'll admit it, I'm mostly talking Americans here) seems to identify itself most strongly by adopting something which defines itself as separate from the generation before it; that is, rather than adopting a unique culture to themselves, they attempt to focus on forming a counter-culture, a contrast to the existing structure meant to stand stark against that structure so as to grasp at a lack of structure entirely; this is evidenced in the Mods of the late 1950s-1960s, the Hippies of the 60s and 70s, the punks of the 80s, and so on; each seeking to find a self-expression through being an entity wholly separate from that which came before it. Even so, these subcultures often find themselves fight for -- or against -- the same ideals as their predecessors, in some grand attempt to overthrow the same system that seemed to oppress the younger years of their forefathers who sought to rebel against their parents, and so on.

Thus, we become an entire culture devoted to nothing more than embracing the taboos of our forebears, eventually assimilating those taboos into the same corporate structure so that we can have the capacity to build a legacy of this "new ideal", bringing about an oppressive structure which will, of course, be the bane of our own progeny as they grow into a world where the system keeps them from expressing themselves as individuals by clinging to outdated mores and archaic customs built on the refusal to succumb to the wisdom of our fathers.

But what else is there? Our only method of distinguishing ourselves is to reject the identities which came before us; we find ourselves becoming that same thing we fought to reject, all the while failing to recognize that at the very core, this system can be nothing but self-replicating. The entire culture of counterculture relies on the principle of breaking new ground when comapred against existent models. We attempt to hash out new ideas by breaking apart ideas that were present before any of us, before any of our progenitors, before any of their parents even knew what ideas could come to be in any given direction, but we can only find frame of reference in the systems that we seek to overthrow; is this cycle the only way we have of experiencing any form of individuality and uniqueness in the world? If the advent of any new era is only capable of rising from the ashes of the prior era, then how could we ever hope to become something other than the same socioeconomic phoenix rebirthed through our own desire to self-terminate, rebuild, and then preserve? We, today, are the suicide of the hippies; not the death of them, but the voluntary compliance of their ideals to the realities of our culturo-economic significance, adherence to which constitutes our only known means of survival.

How long before we can truly find a new way to exist, to survive, to thrive?

Conformist Nonconformity

Long Since Coming

I'd like to take a moment to reflect on change, leadership, and the common misconception that Barack Obama is either a messiah or the devil himself.

A lot of people have been pretty miffed about the way that America has been run for the last eight years; in case my previous postings aren't indicative, I'm among that number myself. A lot of us have been waiting for a change, for things to be different, for a fresh new face to lead us forward and help fix up a lot of problems which may or may not have been the fault of the previous administration; some which have existed since before anyone involved in that administration had power, some of which are relatively new. Now, last week, Barack Obama, the selected representative for this change, was sworn in (twice, even), and we can get down to business, right?

Maybe.

People seem to think that because he's President, Mr. Obama will be able to make good on a number of promises that he made while vying for office; things like tax reductions, stimulus packages, economic relief, advances in medical science, reduction in torture propogated by a nation that doesn't torture -- a lot of good stuff, really, when you get into the heart of it. He's even started his term by taking some strides towards these things -- but that's all he's able to do. I don't know why people think that the federal budget is at the hands of the Preisdent, or why they'd buy into the idea that he can personally reduce their income taxes, or that he's capable of the broad-swept changes that we need, that he promised, that are arenas far beyond the control of his office and those of his fellow administrative folk.

Sure, he's got a congress built on his own party's backs, but even there -- well, partisanship isn't the only name of the game, and he's ruffled a lot of feathers amongst his fellow Democrats as well as Republicans with some of his plans for change; that's going to make it difficult to achieve what he told us would be done as if by magic, and we lapped it up -- the messianic revival of the voting populace flocking to this newfound truth-bringer who shall bear down with light upon the darkness spread by every other politician before him.

Oh, wait. There's a precedent there, isn't there? That every president, every politician, every single man to wield national power in the history of the United States, if not the world, has always lied. They've always failed to deliver on promises made, they've spread untruths, fallen victim to corruption, felt the sting of scandal or flaunted the influence of their position for their own personal gain. Without fail, each of our leaders has faltered, has slipped, has said or done unsavory things better swept under a rug and forgotten. Of course, with the digital age booming, you can bet your life savings -- if you still have any, that is -- that no scandal, no word, no slip of the tongue will exist in obscurity for more than five seconds before it's screaming across the internet by way of mobile-upload Twitter-screeching, Facebook status-updating, MySpace bulletin-shoving instant-gratification superculture.

I'll say what nearly everyone who's being vocal anymore seems afraid to say: I cannot wait for Obama to fail. I am literally abuzz with anticipation for the first blown-out-of-proportion report of possible scandal, of campaign promises crumbling, of our ever-so-exalted perfect leader as he stumbles, falls, and fails to rebound with the same elastic infallibility afforded him during the course of his bid for the office he now holds. It will bring a great and solid joy to my heart the first time that his imperfectness is shoved into the noses of holier-than-thou Leftists who bestow such accolades as are due a God unto this man, and they are forced to remember that, at the end of the day, he is only human. And a politician, at that. No savior shall hail from their number in my day -- of that I am absolutely certain.

That said, I hope that he doesn't. I hope, for all our sakes, that he's somehow able to work the miracles he's foretold, to push his agenda with dogged and unwavering perserverance, to strike at the corruption, inconsistency, and incompetence that plagues our nation, our government, our world. I would like nothing more than to see him pull it off, blaze into the global stage full of this promise and bearing an olive branch that none refuse. It would be the most fantastic thing I've ever known to see this happen.

But, I'm certainly not holding my breath. So, here's to hope, and keep those bomb shelters stocked in the meantime. You did all build those these last few years, right? Right. I thought so.

Long Since Coming

Gladiators

I'll preface this by saying the following as bluntly as possible: I hate election years. I hate the bipartisal system. I am not a supporter of John McCain or Sarah Palin; I am not a supporter of Barack Obama or Joe Biden. I do not support some left-field party hoping to "break ground" and be the first real threat from a new ticket. I'm not Green, Libertarian, or Prohobitionist. I'm an American, and nothing more.

I really hate election years. They bring out the worst in absolutely everyone; suddenly, mudslinging is the new black, and everyone's a Paris-bound fashion mogul. I'm bombarded from all sides with tales of how Candidate X wants to tax the poor but Candidate Y wants to give them handouts and dive national debt. Debates fling across networks, campaign advertisements plague every channel, every lawn, every news article. Everything -- even new scientific research -- comes with a left- or right-wing pundit heralding the advancement of the human race or the degradation of its morals. There's not a single American news report, nor news report about America, that doesn't include a political sideline, footnote, or other jab; anything left untouched by the writers and editors is quickly picked up as a banner by one camp of commentors or another, and soon, it's as if any given website is the central hub for pre-election coverage of the rampant hatred seething under the skin of every principled American.

The real kicker, I think, is that everyone thinks they have an obligation to vote. An obligation to support one of the major tickets. An obligation to empower a half-formed opinion bolstered by party lines, colorful speeches, and media-frenzies based on half-truths (Palin book banning) or association (Rev. Wright) -- things with no real relevance to the task at hand. I challenge this obligation by choosing not to vote; this isn't a refusal or decision to not voice an opinion by any means. Voting is a process by which any given individual pledges their support for another individual based on their personal feelings about any of a number of various factors -- some people vote "party line", some vote because they believe in one candidate or the other, some vote along the "lesser of two evils" line, and some for reasons that I don't know or don't care to list here. Those are all well and good for those people, but I feel that it's just as valid an option to refuse to vote if there are no candidates on the ballot that I can support in good faith. It's like the conscientious objector for the new age, and damned if it doesn't carry a similar stigma.

The real thing that gets me irked, though, is just the increased level of aggravation, of spite, of spitting venom at one another. Everyone gets caught up in their own digs, in their own pseudoreligious fervor for their Chosen One to Whom All Truth Shall Bow, and we spark intense, raging arguments and fights with one another on things that are entirely unrelated! There's just such an overflow of sheer irritation with the Other Side that people are testy about any subject, and are willing to preach their platform on it, going so far as to sever ties that have outlasted several similar elections before. We forego the notion that we are all Americans, and we become only Liberals or Conservatives, drawing battle lines as clear as we did in 1861 with the onset of our nation's civil war. It's as if we forget that after the election, we're going to be forced to continue living with the folks that we've so strongly opposed in the weeks and months leading up to that magical date.

As for me? I'm not voting in this election, nor do I plan to in any election hence. Call me when one of the parties finally admits their facist regime and is ready to make it happen.

Gladiators

Spiral Culture

Recently, while I was at the local drug store acquiring some prescriptions, I saw a woman walk up to the pharmacy counter, and begin speaking with the pharmasist. I'm not normally one for prying into things that are, to be sure, not any of my own business, but the manner in which this particular individual conducted herself was, to be blunt, rather attention-getting. She appeared to be somewhere in her 50s or older; it was tough to tell, partly because it was obvious from various pock-marks, skin discoloration, and general demeanor that she was what folks around here call a "tweaker" -- a methamphetamine user. She was at this particular pharmacy seeking to find refills for a series of potent painkillers -- Soma, Oxycontin, Norco, to name a few of the ones she rattled off -- which she's been prescribed.

Now, don't get me wrong. If someone is in pain, and they've got coverage, they should be able to get pain medications. However, I could tell from the course of the conversation several key facts. First, this was not the first pharmacy she'd been to seeking to acquire these refills; that's a red light in my book, simply because I figure if anyone has turned her down, it's for a reason (perhaps one beyond the fact that the refills weren't yet due -- another revelation she was happy to admit). Secondly, she's been using a collection of more and more potent painkilling pills for quite some time, and is accustomed to "pharm-shopping" to get what it is she's after. Third, she was getting all of these things through some sort of state or federal medical coverage -- that is, the taxpayers of California, or of the U.S. in general, are paying for this woman's continued consumption of these powerful -- and expensive -- drugs.

Living in a place dubbed the "meth capital of the West" by some, I'm more than familiar with the effects that methamphetamine can have on a person. These include joint and bone troubles, shooting pain through the veins, and other, more serious, medical conditions, many of which are extremely painful; a pain that can only be silenced through intensive drugging and, shockingly, discontinuing the use of meth altogether so that the problems don't persist once the drugs have run their course. Otherwise, all that ends up happening is an increased tolerance to the prescriptions that are handed you, and an increased level of pain as the twisted wreckage of your body tears itself apart -- literally -- from the inside, trying to expel from itself the lethal poison that keeps it standing upright despite itself.

If she'd been on private, or work-offered, insurance coverage, I wouldn't really see an issue here; she's paying, one way or another, for the whole of what's happening. But she wasn't. She was getting these benefits, these drugs, at the expense of the population, whose money also goes to fund the war on drugs, the anti-meth task force that the local law enforcement has set up. You'd think that if she has to go through the rigors of getting these benefits -- it's not easy! -- that somewhere along the line, one of the dozens of government agents she'd have to speak with over the months, years, or decades would think, "Hey, maybe this lady is using illegal drugs!"

I'm not saying that suspicion alone is enough to toss someone out on their ass when they're trying to get the help that they need; that's ridiculous, and prone to endemic systematic flaws throughout. However, would it be so difficult to, say, administer a simple urine- or folicle-based drug test to people applying for some sort of government aid? By supplying people like this anonymous woman with coverage, we're wasting taxpayer money, while at the same time encouraging them to pile on the prescriptions, often just as (if not more) addicting than the illegal substances they're already using, thereby compounding the problem in over itself and bringing the whole affair to a screaming speed-race to see who can get higher faster cheaper longer and ride the intoxicating wave of tax dollars put to work to keep all the wheels spinning, and these lives collapse underneath the weight of their own desire to keep on going further, getting more, expanding upon increased drug tolerance with voracious desire, pharmacy-hopping to get their next fix to even the keel that was tipped off-balance by their existing addiction-condition.

Why isn't this being done? Why aren't there regulations that keep this from happening? Simple -- because as long as people like this woman fuel the pseudoeconomy of both the medical companies and the government agencies pouring the dollars of hard-working Americans into the collective coffers of greed. Keep the wheels spinning, no matter what the cost; keep the people so full of painkillers that they can't feel themselves dying, can't feel the strain on their own bodies, their own societies, their own cultures. Keep the wheels spinning, no matter what the cost; keep the money flowing so far and fast that it can't be tracked, and proselytize your supposed efforts to squelch illegal drug use, even as you ensure that those who come clean from things such as meth are forced to feed a new, more powerful, addiction inspired by the professionals to whom they turn when there's nowhere else to look for some kind of comfort. Keep the wheels spinning, no matter what the cost.

How long can any institution fuel itself on the fumes of a faltering base? How long can an entity consume before there's nothing left?

Keep the wheels spinning, no matter what the cost ...

Spiral Culture

Missin' Formation?

Thinking about the various concepts I've tried to address in the last couple of posts has got me, well, thinking. Why aren't these the sorts of things that I ever hear people discussing? Why is it that I never find myself debating the truths of life, the philosophical ramifications of our ideas and ideals, the metaphysical exploration that validates our sense of self against a waning interest in the soul and its final resting place?

Religion, philosophy, and the pursuit of higher thought used to be at the core of many a conversation, not just for me, but for many men in ages past; where has that gone? These days, the theme of everything I see is things which don't seem to matter, the trivia of life; we're more concerned about the soles of Lindsay Lohan's shoes than about the souls -- or lack thereof -- within us all. Religious debate is all but out the window as everyone is so certain that they've figured it out for themselves, and they wouldn't want to risk alienation or controversy by attempting to convince others that they're right; those few who still hold to the idea of pushing their ideology on the masses are the likes of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist "fundamentalists" regarded as freaks, bigots, and the target of ridicule, derision, and the savage vile attack of those who think differently; now, I'll be the first to admit that I disagree with every bit of dreck I've heard attributed to Mr. Phelps and his church, but they do, if nothing else, seem to have something that I see as lacking in almost everyone else around me: conviction. The strength (or stupidity) to stand before the world and scream their beliefs as long and loud as they can through megaphones of hate.

I'm not defending what they say, to be sure, but I'll damn well defend their right to say it, and I'll applaud their sheer indomitable ability to weather the storm of retributive mudslinging sent (rightly) back at them; even those who loathe everything they say and do can grasp that this unique group of people is willing to get themselves out there and, through their own actions, spur thought and debate. I've seen their methods and messages decried by people who, nominally, agree with some of the concepts that they're pushing -- this, to me, is the spirit of debate in its finest form, the naked sense of human belief laid bare before the masses in such a way as to open the heart of the matter, unrepentant about the bruises that they leave on the souls of those who are the targets of their vicious campaigns.

We're all so concerned with popularity, with being liked and accepted, with appealing to a broad audience, with not hurting the feelings of our friends, with being politically correct that even the counter-culture refuses to pander to the hurtful means of being open, forceful, and thought-provoking with their message for fear that some portion of the populous who would never be swayed might use those words as fuel for messages that argue against the points being made on hippie-held signs on the roadsides of San Francisco and the beaches of Cuba. Where's the sense of real discussion, the meat of what it is that makes us able to form these opinions? When did the point of debate become trying to sway the sheepish masses to agreeing with you? From what I recall, the real reason that such forums were held in ages past was not to convince the public that you were in the right (or the left), but to elicit the thought, to force people to use their own minds and examine the cases and come to their own decisions.

I don't care if you, the reader, agree with anything I say. That's not the point. I'm here to say what I feel like saying, without apology, because it will make you think. Because whether you like what I've got to say or not, you come through the experience of examining these words with a clear sense in your mind of whether I'm a genius or a lunatic. To me, I'm both, and neither. If everyone agreed with the way that I see the world, then it wouldn't be an interesting place. Conflict breeds strength, disparity breeds community; differing opinions, moreso than necessity, are the mother of invention -- that's why the production machines run doubletime during wartime, after all! Of course, violence stems from such fundamental disagreements, but that's the human condition as well; we must be willing to accept the consequences of what we say, and that's what I think the real thing that drives us to idle conversation and careful tiptoes around meaty subjects is -- fear. We're afraid of being rejected, of being ridiculed, of being harmed. We're afraid that our worldview will clash with others, and that we're putting ourselves at undue risk by truly speaking our minds.

If we wouldn't take a bullet to defend what we believe, then do we truly believe anything at all?

Missin' Formation?

Armed to Bear Rights

I recently came across a message I wrote to some friends; it's a bit old, but I think the content is still fairly relevant. The crux of the diatribe was some activity on the part of local high schools, who had just begun a program utilizing a third-party company that supplied drug-sniffing dogs. It began with this quote:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This friendly little tidbit comes from the United States Bill of Rights, which grants various "unalienable" rights to our citizenry and all that. It's a good little bit of paper, and it's had extremely good uses throughout its lifespan. That said, it's also quickly fading away into a memory as the government elects to rewrite, reinterpret, or revise portions of it here and there.

On to the case in question. The idea behind the drug dogs was a simple one; a random number of times through the school year, the dogs would be brought to a random handful of classrooms. At this point, the students would be asked to vacate the room while the dogs and their handlers searched their collected belongings, going from desk to desk and checking backpacks, purses, and other personal effects. They would also take the dogs through the parking lots, so as to provide a means of searching student's vehicles.

I'll take this moment to explain that I believe that anyone who brings drugs of any sort on to a school campus is a moron. There's a time and a place for everything, and that is certainly neither of those in this instance. However, that doesn't change the fact that this amounts to illegal search and, presumably, seizure -- unless, of course, they just wanted to know who has the drugs so they can keep an eye on them (not likely, my friends). Therefore, the implication here seems to be that being a high school student serves as probable cause to search for contraband. While this may, in many cases, be true -- after all, we all know what terrors we were as teenagers! -- it simply does not follow, and it absolutely does not conform to the letter or spirit of the above laws which were meant to govern our nation in such a way as to ensure the peace and security of all its citizens.

But wait, there's more! One of these students refused to allow her effects to be searched. She was suspended from school, which lasted as long as it took for a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union to contact the school district. I'm not a big fan of the ACLU in most of their cases; they represent a certain sort of pandering to causes that oughtn't be secured, however, insofar as they defended a damn good document in this case, and rightly so I'd say, I have to throw 'em a bone and say that it was a good move. I'm not sure how the case ended up panning out (as I said, it was a while ago), but I do remember that the student, a female who was getting good grades, returned to school, and also did eventually allow her bags to be searched on the day that the dogs came in; she wasn't carrying anything illegal. That, to me, speaks volumes about her character -- that she was standing up against this incursion not for personal gain or for the protection of her own illegal activities, but on the very principle that what they were doing was, well, wrong.

The thing that irked me the most in this case was user-submitted responses to the article in the local newspaper online. One person suggested that the proper recourse was to call the police, citing that -- and this is a kicker, folks! -- her refusal to submit to the search translated to "just cause". In short, this person believes that if you do not allow law enforcement to search everything you own, your house, your vehicle, your pants pockets, whatever ... then you're up to no good; basically, refusing to allow yourself to be searched means that you're no longer protected, because you've given them reason simply by saying "no". Have they even read the same Bill of Rights as I have? Another gem of a user posted something to the effect of, "The next time you see a group of Middle Eastern people getting on the plane behind you, you'll think differently about what 'just cause' means." Horrendous racism aside, this message seems to forgo the decades of work put towards redefining the essence of "all men are created equal" and the entire history of cultural tolerance, civil rights, and global community that the United States has, as an entity, attempted to embrace.

That there are still people out there holding the flaming sword of this bigotry sickens me. What sickens me more, I think, is the passivity of most of those around us, those who sit on the sidelines and accept that "that's just how things are now". Of course that's how things are, if you let them be that way! Defiance of authority, as in the case of the young girl who refused to be searched, is the very basis of our country. We were founded by free-thinking rebels who rose up against oppressive regimes, banded together in their cause, and collaborated in peace and in war to fight for the very freedoms we see slipping. The founding fathers were proponents of frequent and complete revolution, of standing against any government who did not allow its citizens to be free, of raising fist and flag and never standing idly by, watching the very essence of their beliefs be stripped to nothing as the malcontents stand back in apathy.

I know that posting this to a blog doesn't accomplish much, but it gets a message out. It makes it accessible, and it lets others know that they're not alone in being sick and tired of the recent trends. The purpose of this is to stand on the hilltop and shout, however far it may be to the next set of ears. I am here as a representative of the malcontents whose apathy has grown stale and, if nothing else, I can refuse to be silent.

UPDATE:
Here's a link to the article I was referencing. It took some digging to find, but it's worth a read.

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=33868

A few gems from the content:

'Trott said she emptied her bag to reveal there was nothing illegal in it but still took the suspension.'

'But based on surveys that found a significant number of students in the CUSD had tried or considered trying drugs, the district is able to establish a blanket suspicion of an entire campus.'

'When Trott told P.V. Principal Michael Rupp that she was defending her rights, she said he responded with, "You don't have those rights."'

Armed to Bear Rights

Indulgence by Proxy

I should probably preface this by saying that I don't intend to downplay the plight of poor nations. I should probably say something about the value of altruistic behavior. I should probably even say that I sympathize with the starving peoples of Africa, with the war-torn nations of the Middle East, with the oppressed majorities of Asia.

But I won't do any of those things.

What is this force that drives nations like our own to overextend themselves in the global community? Our own national debt rises as the economy crumbles beneath us; homes are being taken out from under the people who lived in them and resold as rental properties to cater to the slightly-less-desperate Americans who've managed to scrape together the funds to be able to afford the ballooning costs of living, and still we're focused on the global good, the humanitarian principles of serving our fellow man? Droughts and food shortages plague our own neighborhoods as the dejected starve in the streets, looking for someone to lend that same hand that's been chopped off and mailed to Darfur where things are obviously so much worse as to eclipse our own slow descent into the third world.

Faltering markets are pushed aside by rising consumption of useless consumer goods, and we're still trying to convince ourselves that buying a $600 video game system is better for the environment than our hybrid cars with their lowered carbon emissions and aesthetic appeal taken straight from the runway models who look as rail-thin as the cocaine they shove up their nostrils to support the drug lords funded by our own dollars in decades past, now forgotten until their disenfranchised slave-labor forces are found drowning like rats in the oceans between us and them as they seek rabidly to find the wealth that's promised by the images in the media of the final consumers of their own products, and still the best we can do to fight against anything is ship billions more dollars overseas to try to feed the world's growing population while we bicker about whether a black guy, or a woman could fill the captain's cabin.

It makes me sick to call myself an American sometimes, but I still call myself by this term with pride not because I think it's something to be proud of, but because the label bears a sense of difference and distinction promoted by our own advertising campaigns which fall flat on the ears of the global community, who is only now beginning to think that JUST MAYBE the average person over here is just as tired of the way our society tears shambles across the landscape of human history, ravenous to devour any legacy we might have once held close in order to shed a new light on the life and times of every single person, exemplified in the celebrity cries to turn off the cameras, give peace a chance, and free Tibet at the cost of our own self-indulgent suffering.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the only reason things won't change is because we've all decided long ago that fatalism is the way of truth, that manifest destiny has us beholden to nothing more than screaming silent whispers through online posts, empty promises for a Brave New World, and lip-service funeral processions for the way things Should Have Been; they'll never get there, of course, because we all believe that none of us can change all of us, that no ONE man can make a difference despite evidence to the contrary, and even those few who've figured out that the change CAN be made are self-restrictive to the point of being wholly ineffective, shadows of the great men of the past who, in their time, were radicals and outcasts that have been painted in new light by the lens of the passage of time.

When history writes of this era, who will our heroes have been?

Indulgence by Proxy