the people's voice, the politician's hindrance

As noted on usconstitution.net, and as should be obvious to any of us living in this country, the United States Constitution, and the “democracy” that results there from, is “deliberately inefficient.” This sort of deliberate inefficiency dates back to the earliest historical democracies, notably Greece. In effect, the inefficiency, not just general bureaucracy but the most important (arguably) pieces of our American system of government—checks and balances, separation of powers, even Federalism itself—serves to divide power so that no one person can ever have too much control, so that no one branch of government can have too much authority. Occasionally, though, this inefficiency, and the details thereof, presents itself in such a way as to make it seem that one man can have too much authority, at least for a time. This doesn’t go as far as, say, the appointment of a Roman dictator, an emergency measure that bypasses an otherwise democratic (in spirit if not in actuality, just like our American system) government.

 

Instead, we can see a very recent example of what I’m talking about in Senator Richard Shelby’s blanket hold on somewhere around 70 nominations/appointments of federal judges and executive branch positions in order to demand some attention to some of his person, political interests. A spokesperson for Shelby specified those interests as “the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker acquisition and the FBI's Terrorist Device Analytical Center.” Those things may be important—I don’t know enough about the specifics there to comment, really, but that isn’t the point here. This sort of hold has been around for a while, Section 2 of Rule VII of the Rules of the Senate allow for no consideration of bills, resolutions, reports, etc. without unanimous consent of those present. Withholding such consent—that is the hold Senator Shelby used recently. Of course, Article II, Clause 2 of the US Constitution requires the President’s appointments and nominations, though they are his decision, to occur “by and with the advice and consent of the senate.” So, like Senator Shelby did recently, any senator may hold hostage such appointments, at least temporarily—like a filibuster, such a hold may be ended by a cloture vote—to draw attention to whatever he sees fit.

 

An older, tangentially related example can be found in your history book—though it is usually cited for a separate issue—in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Marbury vs. Madison. John Adams, in the last days of his tenure as President, made some final appointments, notably that of William Marbury as justice of the peace for the county of Washington. The presidential seal was affixed by Secretary of State John Marshall, but the commission—the physical papers—were not delivered to Marbury, because Adam’s tenure ended and the new president, Thomas Jefferson had his Secretary of State, James Madison, withhold the documents. The president—not a senator, as in the recent incident above—and the Secretary of State stood as the agents of inefficiency here, the agents of opposition. For, what is our two-party system but a system of opposition, an antagonistic system that has become a more and more palpable divide in our country over the years? It may supply a sense of stability—with two opposing parties, the country cannot go too far to one extreme, for such movement will simply be reversed when the other party takes over—but it also slows down progress, be it objective and shared by people on bother sides of the partisan divide, or subjective, a partisan-specific issue… but I digress.

 

There is efficiency possible in government, but it comes from the dictator, the monarch. It comes from putting the decision-making in the hands of one individual. And, it can result in a positive effect—many a Roman dictator solved the crisis that led to his appointment, one of them, Cincinnatus, even voluntarily quit the position immediately thereafter; the rise of South Korea’s economic strength (as we saw in class recently, in viewing a segment from “Asia is Rising”) could be credited to General Park Chung Hee; when Tsar Peter I dictated European dress in the Russian court, it transformed Russian culture; and, another Russian example, ending serfdom took the act of Tsar Alexander II, not a popular movement or a revolution from below. But, under these leaders, under dictators and monarchs, there is brutality. There is a lack of personal freedom. Our republican democracy gives us—though some might debate the thoroughness of this one, given the number of people we imprison or execute in a given year—a freedom from brutality and tyranny, and, with far less limitation than in many other countries, many personal freedoms we would not have under a system the operated with efficiency.

 

Is it a good thing that Madison could arbitrarily stop a presidential appointment, that Shelby can now? Probably not, in and of itself, but it is just a piece of a system that most Americans would argue is a good one, even when they might protest big government or the political direction we are going at any given moment.  It is something we get, when we the people demand a voice.

 

Some sources consulted (i.e. the ones that aren’t obvious like, say the constitution):

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html

http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleVII

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100209/ap_on_go_co/us_senator_blocking_nominations

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.HTML

A Level Playing Field with Unequal Sides

a cross-post from an assignment for my political science class, to forgive me if i don't take the time to explain that structural, cultural and rational approaches, or neglect to say much specifically pertaining to the two films used as the jumping off point for the assignment.

While “Asia Rising” makes a good case for a rational choice (and a bit of a cultural one as well, but to a much lesser degree, possibly more my reading into what was on the screen, while the filmmakers were more focused on the rational side of things) approach to South Korea’s economic rise, I am of the opinion that the structural approach taken by “Life and Debt” in describing the economic situation in Jamaica that holds more water. As I see it, there may be rational choice elements and there may be cultural elements (especially in the perpetuation of things like Oscar Lewis’ “slum culture), but what really drives things are structural elements. In the modern world, of course, the primary structural system is Global Capitalism.

 

Capitalism has been shown to alter whole culture before, whether for good or bad. One example, historically, is Old Calabar of Africa, where the slave trade turned the local culture in to a capitalist culture. Local chieftains had to take on the dress and mannerisms of Europeans (this, not essentially part of capitalism, but an important detail in the transition from their old way of life to their new one, and contrary to my overall point here, this brings in perhaps a little of the rational choice approach), the slavers who came in their ships upriver to Calabar. Wealth started to be measured in new terms—or, really, measured at all, as hereditary rule was the thing before—in how many men and canoes a man could command, as they took canoes upriver to gather slaves to bring down to the European ships. Government in the “canoe houses” became increasingly more centralized, bureaucratic, and the society around it became more stratified, divided between the richer men in control and the poorer men (many slaves in practice if not fact) under them (a bit of the cultural approach here, though still driven by structural elements). Along with centralized government, and perhaps the driving force behind the political change, the slave trade also brought a change to the economy of Old Calabar. The trade was very profitable, increasing constantly that divide between rich and poor, while credit from Europe allowed for conspicuous consumption, and the rich leaders of the canoe houses acquiring more and more slaves and belongings. They became capitalists, interested not in the meager profit that would get them by but the increasingly large profits of modern capitalism. This fits with the structuralist approach of World Systems Theory, the notion the capitalism exists for and is driven by a constant need for accumulation, profit and expansion. The slave trade existed so colonies around the world could exploit Africans to make huge profits and the trade itself turned other Africans into exploitative capitalists. It altered the very heart of places like Old Calabar…

 

…just as it has damaged Jamaica, The WTO, the IMF—these organizations serve capitalism, serve the nations who already dominate the global market. And, their decisions in regards to, say, the banana industry and the US-backed Chiquita and Dole corporations, serve to level a playing field and standardize rules between the Brobdignagian economies and desperately poor Lilliputians (in comparison). But, level fields and egalitarian rules are meaningless in s system built on exploitation and economic dominance. As Karl Marx argued a century and a half ago, the only way for business to make profits (any profits, really, but the key here with modern capitalism is the inherently demanded massive profits) is to cheat the workers, to pay them less and less and this system tears down the smaller economies, like Jamaica, because it is fundamental to its inner working that it “is forced to let [such small economies] sink into a condition where it must feed [it].” It is no coincidence that one of the workers from the Kingston Free Zone described her work in “Life and Debt” as such: “it’s like you’re working under slavery.” The surface has changed, old style slavery has been sublimated into capitalist exploitation. In Calabar there was a distinction between those legitimately enslaved (ie those captured upriver) and those illegitimately enslaved (ie two princes who fell victim to a plot that put them into slavery when they had been slavers), as if such a distinction makes any sense when viewed objectively. It is the kind of distinction the WTO or the IMF might make if the slave trade (as it was) were still around, the kind of distinction they make in spirit when they “level the playing field” between Chiquita and Dole and the Jamaican banana industry. But, then again, what choice does Jamaica have but to go along with it—they can’t really opt out of the global market, can they?

 

Works cited: Though I used no direct quotes in there, the basics of the Calabar material, but not my analysis thereof, come from my recent reading of “The Two Princes of Calabar.” That line about capitalism being forced to let workers (or as I used the line, speaking on a larger scale, small economies) sink into a dependent role is from the “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” And, of course, there are my notes on “Life and Debt” and “Asia Rising,” though I didn’t cite the latter really at all and used the former as a “jumping off point,” per the assignment, for my take on the broader issue.

Anyone can participate in politics… as long as he has money
Now Playing: alice in chains
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v FEC “struck down decades-old limits on corporate and union spending in elections (including judicial elections) and opened up our political system to a money free-for-all, according to Richard Hasen, Slate Magazine (“Money Grubbers” 21 January 2010). According to Justice Stevens, in his official “opinion”, the “real issue in the case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance electioneering.” I was going to get into some of the specifics of this recent case (and will cover them briefly in a moment), but it seems a larger issue is at stake, something that has come up many times before (in the reversed Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce or the partially overruled McConnell v FEC, to name the two most obvious (and most cited) recent cases) and will come up time and time again, that of monetary involvement in the political process.

This latest decision was described by President Obama, in his State of the Union address as “opening the floodgates for special interests” to spend without limit” on political campaigns, or more specifically, on electioneering ads. But, one has to wonder if this just cuts out a single step in the process, ie the creation of a Political Action Committee (PAC). Corporations, non-profits, anybody—they could already donate money to political campaigns, just sometimes limited to indirect contribution by way of a PAC. Now, it seems, they might not have to bother with that step any longer. Citizens United put together a documentary on how Hillary Clinton would be a horrible choice for president and set out to make the documentary available free on demand on cable—this is the key point in the recent decision; it was not a question of whether or not an organization can spend millions of dollars putting together a negative portrayal of a politician, not a question of whose money gets spent, necessarily, or how it gets spent, but a question of whether on demand constituted public presentation, so to speak. In the aforementioned Slate article, Hasen suggests that the court might have been expected to go at this narrowly, covering that question and that question alone, but instead, the Roberts court, in the opinion of Hasen, was “recrafting constitutional law.” Of course, in the opinion of the President of Citizens United, David Bossie, (statement, 21 January 2010), it is “a tremendous victory, not only for Citizens United, but for every American who desires to participate in the political process,” something he goes on to call “the right of every American citizen,” as if the only way to participate in the process is to throw money at it.

Of course, money has been shaping political campaigns since the beginning. For example, in his Bank Veto Message, 10 July 1832, President Andrew Jackson said, “it is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.” He called the existing national bank, and by all rights all of what William Jennings Bryan would call in his 1896 Presidential Campaign Cross of Gold speech, “the encroachments of organized wealth,” “subversive to the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people… Will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections?”

So, it is worth asking, what is so different now that even President Obama had to bring up the recent Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union address, if our elections have already has a certain financial impurity for, well, as long as we’ve had them? For that matter, if we are a capitalist nation—and, make no mistake, we most certainly are—why do we infringe on such spending in the first place?

Supreme Court decision(s) excepted, is… or rather, should money be a first amendment issue? Jon Meacham, in his Andrew Jackson biography, American Lion, suggest that Jackson was of the opinion that “the country was being controlled by a kind of congressional-financial-bureaucratic complex in which the needs and concerns of the unconnected were secondary to those who were on the inside.” That is, those with financial and political capital were more important, fundamentally, to the system than the common man, damn the “by the people, for the people.” It is worth mentioned that Jackson was a laissez-faire capitalist; he believed in the free market, and stood more against the National Bank specifically than against all financial institutions, but he also wished to “buttress presidential power with mass support—something never done before,” according to Robert Remini in Andrew Jackson and the Bank War. Klaus Hansen, in Mormonism and the American Experience, suggests that Jackson’s veto of the National Bank “made possible the creation of the modern American capitalist empire with its fundamental belief in religious, political, and economic pluralism.” By tearing down the National Bank and leaving the economy unregulated, Jackson made possible the Industrial Revolution in America, and the emergence of corporations and monopolies larger than the National Bank ever was. And, all this in the name of defending the “purity of our elections.” Yet, we come back to money buying ad time, money paying campaign promoters, money buying elections. As Samuel Bryan suggested, decades before Jackson’s presidency, and centuries before the Citizens United decision, “if the administrators of… government are actuated by views of private interest and ambition, how is the welfare and happiness of the community to be the result of such jarring adverse interests?” (Anti-Federalist, Centinel I, 5 October 1787).

What it comes down to, then or now, is a very simple premise: in a capitalist system, is it unexpected or unwarranted that finance will, if not already then eventually, control everything? The common man necessarily becomes a disinterested, uninvolved party, recognizing, at least unconsciously, the smallness of his part. And, he in turn, if he wants to “participate” in politics, must donate what meager cash he has to a campaign or a PAC, when larger sums are already driving the campaigns’ direction and policy. The bourgeoisie use their pocketbooks to, still, “bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes,” while the masses go out and vote, only in part, and pretend that their individual votes matter more than the millions of dollars from special interests.

synchronicity dictates i talk about haiti

so, monday (then again wednesday) in world civilizations class, we were discussing the haitian constitution (from 1801, after the slaves took control). then, monday night in comparative politics class, i had opportunity to mention jared diamond (particularly, his use of haiti in his book collapse) after our teacher suggested haiti and the united states couldn't be compared. then, tuesday, as we all should probably have heard by now, haiti had a 7.0 earthquake, flattening buildings and killing, well, a whole lot of people. so, since i am supposed to be writing a blog entry (for the aforementioned comparative politics class) anyway, i figured i would go with the flow of synchronicity and write a little bit about haiti. reader's note: this first paragraph won't be in this blog entry as it appears on the class site, though it will everywhere else... which, though i've been neglecting my blogs for a while, would be at myspace, at livejournal (that one later posting automatically to facebook), and at my website, lemmingdrops.com. now, on to haiti and some attempt at comparative politics. again, this paragraph won't be in the class version, so forgive any phrasing that seems redundant with it present... like the opening sentence of the next paragraph.

i'd like to talk about haiti. the earthquake this week has taken one of (if not THE) poorest countries in  the western hemisphere and dragged it even farther down the scale, flattening buildings, including apparently the 5-story hotel where the UN offices there are located, a prison, houses, businesses, even some buildings at the airport in port-au-prince, the capital. just today, president obama said the US would be sending $100 million twoard the relief effort, not to mention thousands of soldiers. the more cynical side of me wonders what's the point? did any of us in america care about haiti just a few days ago?

a little history:

christopher columbus landed at haiti in 1492, and thereafter came much exploitation by the spanish for gold. not, of course, before the spanish executed a local "queen" when she stood up to them. that queen, anacaona, is revered still by the haitian people.

hisapniola (the island which is now haiti and the dominican republic) was a notable location for pirates and slavetraders, and there was dispute over the island between the french and spanish was settled in 1697--that's when haiti became its own territory, then called saint domingue. it was, like many other parts of the new world, an agricultural land, worked by slaves. inspired by the american and the french revolutions, the haitians slaves rose up in 1792. it took a while, and some fighting, but by 1804, haiti achieved independence. according to jared diamond (collapse 335), at that time haiti "was still the richer, stronger, and more populous  part of the island," something that would change drastically over time.

the haitian constitution owes some of its basic language to the american declaration of independence. it speaks of all me being born "free" and being "eligible for employment." it even goes further than our declaration (or our constitution)--and expectedly so, given it was being founded by former slaves--outlawing slavery. but, then it also specifically calls for roman catholicism to be the "only publicly professed faith," puts a specific value on marriage and the family and specifically dictates how cultivation, "the colony being essentially agricultural," would work: essentially a communal system (like the russian mir at the same time, but run by families), the consititution demanded cultivation, demanded farming, and outlawed imports of "good similar in nature" to its exports, an economic protectionist move. haiti had seized its independence and was dictating a clear role for its people and its self in the world.

they even annexed the eastern side of the island for a time, twice. as diamond points out, by the 1850s, haiti "controlled less area than its neighbor but had a larger population." haiti's stance against outsiders--the aforementioned ban on most imports as well as further policies forbidding foreigners from owning land or controlling means of production--plus their mixed heritage and language (while the dominican republic was seen as spanish-speaking, european) kept it mostly out of the world market. while much of the world was industrializing, particularly the united states not too far away, haiti remained relatively poor. 

1915 to 1934, the US occupied haiti (and the dominican republic 1916-24) militarily, ostensibly to prevent unrest and protect our interests in panama farther south. whatever strife or instability had been in haiti before, was amplified after the US left. under dictator rafael trujillo (evil maybe, but efficient like many a dictator), the domincian republic modernized quite a bit over the following decades. haiti remained poor, unstable, until it had its own dictator, papa doc duvalier. unlike trujillo, though, duvalier lacked "interest in modernizing his country or developing an industrial economy" (collapse 338). he died in 1971, his son ruled until he was forced out in 1986. haiti returned to instability.

diamond asks why these two countries, sharing the same island, unfolded so differently. he cites environmental differences; notably, rain comes mostly from the east, so the eastern side of the island supports more plant growth, the dominican side has higher mountains with rivers that flow down into the eastern side as well--he even calls th cibao valley in the dominican side of the island "one of the richest agricultural areas in the world" (collapse 339). the paradox is that the haitian side developed an agricultural economy first. and, it was valuable to the richer french empire (at the time, ie the 1500s), which encouraged the slave-based plantations, while the poorer spanish empire neglected to do so with the dominican side of the island.

what is has come down to more recently is deforestation and poverty on the haitian side, a coup d'etat in 1991, a purportedly corrupt election in 2000, and another coup in 2004. since 2004, there's been a united nations stabilization mission in haiti, made up of nearly 10,000 personnel, but as of 2007, according to a red cross report, this mission has failed to gain control over armed gangs throughout the country. and, now, this week, the country was ravaged by a 7.0 earthquake. and, nations around the world are throwing money and supplies at the problem. but, while lives might be helped, the country will remain what it is, unstable, economically weak, and lacking in the natural resources it once had and used well.

one has to wonder if protectionism, like the haitian constitution's limit on imports, or reliance on constitutionally-dictated agriculture as the rest of the world was drifting toward industrialization--even at the start of the 19th century--crippled haiti so much that it never had a chance without a serious overhaul. after all, the american south's reliance on slave labor crated such economic (and subsequently, political) disparity between the north and south that it led us to civil war. haiti began the 19th century prosperous and independent (as did the american south), but lacked true connection (see the ban on imports) with the world's economy, even its French parent, and did not evolve economically as it, arguably, needed to evolve in order to survive. instead, it has limped along, remained poor, gone through many periods of instability, and now can do little to help itself when disaster strikes.

 

glenn beck versus reality
Mood:  irritated

watching glenn beck last night, i just had to record it and take some notes. tactics on his show angered me too much to just ignore it--the usual method when watching fox news is to laugh and remind myself these are far right folks who, while they may have an audience, have no actual politica power, so i'll just ignore them for now as best i can

but, glenn beck is talking about obama and healthcare, with a nice drawing of a tree, the roots the people obama supposedly surrounds himself with when considering healthcare. there's a nice clip of obama saying what people he associates himself with when considering economic policy and foreign  policy. but, the clip doesn't establish the people obama claims in connection with his healthcare policy. that is just the first misstep in beck's coverage, inventing his own list of who obama associates with. some, of course, are givens, people in public office, put there by obama, but overall, the links are all beck's invention.

all this, by the way, to compare america to germany, as we are wont to do whenever the administration does something we don't like (hell, i've probably even done it). of course, beck's reasoning there is that what made germany go bad was only two things, money (or the lack thereof) and crazy people. yeah, that's nice and specific, very fair and balanced and informative

so, beck mentions john holdren, obama's advisor on science and technology. see, apparently, in the 70s (mostly written around 73 but published in 77) holdren cowrote a book called ecoscience in which is discussed options for, among other things, population control if overpopulation gets too far out of control. the book presents mostly hypotheticals and goes into political, legal, and social ramifications of certain options like forced abortions, sterilants in the water and laws regulating how many children a woman can have. the thing is, the book, even in the excerpts cited by someone denouncing it (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/) is clearly not presenting a plan for what should or will be done. the book is not an opinion piece establishing that holdren or his 2 coauthors believe we need to start forcing abortions and sterilization. and, the book does actually suggest that social change would be a better plan, changing society so that people want to have less children

of course, i've just presented more information than beck did. one of his guests says that holdren said some things in writing once about drastic measures for population control. beck mentions forced abortion and sterilants in drinking water than asks (because asking a question is a handy way of accusing someone of something without outright saying it) if it was holdren or sunstein (cass sunstein, office of information and regulatory affairs, who beck says he likes the ideas of, but presents as one of the "crazy" roots here because he is a friend of peter singer, author of animal liberation), on the root next to holdren who said we should take children away from unwed and unfit mothers (yes, that last one is also in the ecoscience book, and sounds a lot like what we try to do already, when are child and family services organizations run effiiciently anyway). one of his guests says, oh that couldn't be sunstein, so it must have been holdren. it's still just vague enough that they haven't actually accused holdren of supporting forced abortion. but then, 10 minutes later, when the caption at the bottom of the screen informs the enraged (either at beck or at holdren, depending on one's political bent, of course) viewer that holdren "does not support population control" beck has already used holdren as a way to explain how the green movement's involvement as one of obama's healthcare tree roots (a connection he doesn't bother to explain in itself; in fact, though the diagram seems to be of beck's design, he says he couldn't figure out the green movement connection until he figured out what follow) makes sense because the green movement thinks people are a virus (which of course fits with holdren's notion that we need to control population, even as the timing of beck making this connection comes about 20 seconds before the screen informs us first that holdren said forced abortion was constitutional (he did) then that holdren does not support population control

that last fact, which of course doesn't come up in anything beck or his guests say out loud, is in line with official statement from holdren's people, that the material about forced abortion, etcetera, comes from "a three decade old, three author college textbook. dr holdren does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government [(this bit, he said in his confirmation hearing)]. dr holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." his coauthors, the ehrlichs, have pointed out that they "were not then, never have been, adn are not now 'advocates' of the draconian measures for population limitation described--but not recommended--in the book's 6o plus small type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, has either been tries in some country or analyzed by some commentator." as the back cover of ecoscience says, the point to the book is to provide "concrete strategies for dealing with the environmental crisis" not to support any of those strategies

but, what does the reality matter, as beck just used holdren (who he didn't quite accuse of supporting forced abortion outright) to make the green movement sound bad, just as he used peter singer to make sunstein sound bad, and all these roots to make obama sound bad. and, all of this without really getting into even one thing obama has actually said or done regarding healthcare 

barack obama's "new foundation"
as our new president said this morning, "the state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act--not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth"

like franklin delano roosevelt's "new deal" or lyndon banes johnson's "great society" now is the time for new programs to lift up the people and get them working again, get the economy healthy again. "build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together" and all else that is needed to raise this nation out of the mire of the last 8 years, to improve our worldy image and make us respectable again.

let us be in a position to reflect johnson's words: "The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community."

even in selfpublishing, i don't know what i'm doing
Mood:  down
Now Playing: pandora
been trying out lulu the last few days, reformatting my selfpublished novels to go over there from cafepress cause i'd be getting ISBN numbers for them. had to alter the original page sizes and reformat the covers--couldn't manage to get a pdf from a png properly which would have made "the empress of time" cover very unfortunately impossible and to a lesser degree the "clubhouse blues" cover (though i could have gotten around that one)--had to rework the covers a second time after the png/pdf issue, and only then learned of a long list of requirements for formatting and whatnot to get an isbn (not to mention i can't place the barcode, which kinda makes it hard to plan for my lemming drops studio logo on the backcover) and distribution (though there is a free option in distribution, the good ones seem to cost money)

and, i think there might have been a sentence in there when i started, but it got lost... as did i

anyway, while the novels will still be at cafepress, for now there will be no links to them at lemmingdrops.com or anywhere else as i discovered some old formatting troubles i missed the first time (good thing i've not sold a significant number of copies) and i'll be fixing those and then all 3 books will be back, as will be a 4th

in theory

pathetic update...
Mood:  bright
and last night, $143 belt--and not some fancy woman's belt either, just a plain ol guy's leather belt--and $319 jeans

at that price, you have to do like the cowboys and wear those things every day for, well, the rest of your adult life to make it worth it

some stuff about "false consciousness" i found and $220 jeans
Mood:  mischievious
on a sheet of paper i found the following:

to interrupt the page i found, i should mention that last night i was doing an inventory at diesel at the beverly center, and mostly i was going through item tags too fast to notice much detail. two details did catch my eye, though, one interesting but pointless, the other interested and quite pointed. the first: black leather bags were listed as neon yellow. the second: they had jeans that cost $220... there were also bags in the hundreds of dollars range but that's more common these days. but, seeing those jeans--and there didn't seem to be much too great about them; they weren't even "diesel" brand or some brand i'd heard of, where the cachet would have some alleged value in our modern society. they were just expensive jeans. the local salvation army shop in glendale is closing up and having a 75% off sale, and seeing those jeans made me want to stop by and pick up some clothes, maybe even some jeans, at 75% off just to demonstrate how fucked up our system is, when i could get jeans for mere cents, maybe a dollar, and there are some jeans for $220--and i'm sure there are even more expensive jeans elsewhere. the use-value and exchange-value sure are separated, and it's like society at large doesn't care... or if many do, it's not enough, not enough people, and not enough caring or something about all this would change...

but i digress. back to the paper i found:


except, oh so many do accept some vague notion of "the Man" keeping them down, but they ignore it as best they can, hoping against hope that maybe someday, if they work hard enough and dream big enough that they can be "the Man" and keep others down--or maybe they are misguided enough to think they can lift others up by inserting themselves into the body of  "the Man"--that thay can achieve the "American dream" with its accompanying riches... and then, they can buy some expensive jeans

also on this same sheet of paper of mine were two quoted bits of graffiti from the 1968 student uprising in Paris:


these are the things i write down from time to time, the things that get stuck in my head, but we've got over 4000 dead soldiers and thousands upon thousands of dead iraqis buying us cheap gas, right? and the world is a wonderful, peaceful place, so why should i even care how much jeans cost or what our "false consciousness" tells us is so, and what reality actually is in its difference... and its indifference

hell, i just queried an agent about one of my novels for the first time in a while. maybe this time will be the time i get something sold and i can be rich and famous and wear expensive jeans and wonder what the hell i was rambling about when i wrote this blog entry. let's all keep out fingers crossed

this isn't it
Mood:  don't ask
so, i'm watching north and south, all three books, recently, and i'm getting in my head ideas for reimagining it as an adaptation into an hourlong series, maybe a season per book, lots of historic detail, and still all the fiction that makes north and south good...

or i'm in history class planning to take more history courses, imagining being a history teacher...

but in a week, i'll be looking for temp work, probably some office job; it's what i used to do for years

life has a tendency of destroying ideas. no wonder the world sucks