There Will Be Peace In The Valley

February 5th, 2010

I don’t know how I do it, but I keep choosing to watch and listen to the most disturbing things while I’m working on my comics.  Most people would simply listen to music, but for whatever reason, I have never found that to be an effective mental stimulant.  Last month, it was This American Life, and this go-round, it’s been disturbing animation.

It’s a common refrain, I know, but if anyone thinks that animation is still just kids’ stuff, you’re out of your mind.  My most recent viewing sprees were Gundam-00 and Now and Then, Here and There, both from Japan (where else?).  They are both brilliantly animated, and, in spite of the fact that, as is common in Japanese-to-English transfers, the translation is not always quite a clean one, they are both terriffically disturbing, primarily because they both tackle the subject of war, violence, and their consequences.  This is a subject very close to my current project, 6-Commando, and to me personally, as I have some very close friends who are at war right now.

What distinguishes these two series from others of their type is that they are so deceptive and insidious – they drag you in, kicking and screaming, and completely involve you in the story and characters in a way that I’m convinced that live-action could never do.  Gundam-00 seems on the surface to be cheeseburger Giant Robot anime, with the main characters engaged in a futile attempt to end war on Earth by suppressing conflict with super-advanced weaponry.  But the oxymoron is not lost on the characters themselves, and it is this, rather than the animated super-combat-action, that I found to be the most engaging aspect of the series.  Yes, there were some tacked-on romantic subplots, and yes there was a lot of violent action for its own sake, but there was also the engagement of very real and very sphisticated issues surrounding war and violence in the modern age – religious and resource-oriented conflict, the use of child soldiers, internationalism, and, ultimately, the question of whether or not waging war to end war is at all an acceptable paradox.

Now and Then, Here and There, in like fashion, has an ultimately pacifistic message, but is unflinching in its presentation of the effects war and violence have, in particular on children.  It’s about ten years old, so I know I’m kind of behind the curve in talking about it, but I still think it a brilliant piece of animation.  The graphic violence is actually sparing, in the final analysis – it’s mostly suggested, and occurs off-camera except for a few very important scenes.  But this adds to the impact, I think, as it leaves the specifics to the viewer’s imagination, which I think is far more frightening than showing the gory details.  The thing that’s most disturbing is that the story swings violently out of control so quickly.  It seems like a typical “triumph against adversity” formula, but it isn’t – the systematic use and abuse of humanity is presented in all its brutal, earthy reality, but, most uncommonly, it is done in a way that is not at all voyeuristic or manipulative.  In most recent American and European hero-dramas, there is a good guy and a bad guy, but the two are effectively equivalent characters except for the admixture of ideology which makes you root for the “good” and st at the edge of your seat waiting for the “baddies” to get their comeuppance.  This is a typically manipulative box office trick that made me hate the film V for Vendetta, among others, as it perpetuates the greatest falsehood of our times: that power and violence are amoral concepts, and that brutalizing and killing and your foe is acceptable so long as you are righteous.

In Now and Then, Here and There, the sympathetic characters suffer along with their enemies.  The the brutalization of the three main characters is profoundly horrible in a way that was shocking to me, but was made worse by the fact that the “bad guys” are really trapped by their own evils as well, as much victims of the seduction of violence and power as those they subjugate.  In a way similar to such films as Blade Runner or The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, the story is an intellectually and emotionally damaging one, and even though the ending could be considered “happy,” after a fashion, it is not a story that leaves you feeling good about the state of the human condition.  But at its core, the message about the essential value of the human person, both vicitm and abuser alike, is something you almost never see in the West.  It is also the only time where I have seen an unabashed defense of human life, in a particularly moving scene where the main character, Shu, implores the character Sara not to kill her unborn child – a conception that was the result of her abuse at the hands of enemy soldiers.  This alone makes it an exceptional series – the intense beauty of the animation, from the looks of it made without computer assisted graphics, only adds to it.

Both of these series can be seen online in various places, and though I can’t “reccommend” them in the sense of “run out and see them right away!” I have to say that they represent, to me, some of the best graphic storytelling currently available, albeit in a different form from my own.  Neither of these make for peaceful sleep the night after, however, so be warned – if you’re in for fluff or pure entertainment, look elsewhere.

You Can Do Better

February 2nd, 2010

It was only this morning, after a long night of rashly looking over my work so far on 6-Commando (see link at right), that I realized that drawing is really very much like writing, in the sense that it takes a lot of revision to get something into any kind of shape to print. I haven’t yet begun to undertake the odious task of going over the first chapter with The Red Pen, but it’s increasingly clear to me that fully half of the drawings here will need to be seriously revised before they can be turned into passable proofs. This not only includes technical problems like continuity, characters being off-model, missing insignia, etc., but whole panels, and in one instance a whole page, that just fails to meet what I consider an acceptable standard.

It’s a very disappointing thing to have to admit to yourself that you’re not up to scratch yet.  There’s a tremendous amount of mental inertia to doing a project like this, and seeing someone else’s work all set up in print, I always tend to imagine them coming out that way the first time around, as though the artist just sits down with a sheet of paper and a brush and just produces the thing as a set piece.  But the truth is that this deletes about 95% of the process.  And as much as I’d like every page that I post to the site for 6-Commando to be a masterwork of graphic design, the fact is that each page I post is only, at best, a first draft.

This is all a result of the fact that I basically decided to dive into this whole thing head-first, mainly as a change from my usual, deliberative, “take ten years or so to warm up” style.  I have a whole story, with a beginning, middle and end, and I have a general outline, but rather than labor over everything on the front end, I felt like I just had to start, or nothing would ever come of it.  I knew myself: the only way for me to do it was to start drawing.  Result: the thing is changing as I make it.

And yet this is not such a big deal, I think.  After all, the website serves its purpose – it puts it all in one place, and it keeps me producing, and moving the project forward.  And like in any good piece of writing, revision, editing, and rewriting are simply part of the process; this is a graphic story, so there’s no reason this should not be the same.  It’s a tough thing to think about, that you’ll have to put in at least as much work in revising as in making the first cut.  But in the end, it’s all about process.  So, albeit with a vast reluctance, I’m just going to have to do it, because I do want it to be the best I can make it.

One thing is certain, though: once I’ve gone through actually making one, I doubt I’ll read books the same way anymore.

Laff and a Half

February 1st, 2010

Yowza!  Here we all are, with the first decade of the millennium safely under our belts, and all I have to say about that is: where are my moon colonies?!  I guess I can be patient.  But they only have a few years left to flood society with homicidal Rutger Hauer clones, so they better get ON it!

As for me, well, it HAS been a while, hasn’t it?  Eventful couple of weeks which had me holding on for dear life.  First and foremost, my car finally shuddered its last, and had to be replaced.  I’m normally one to be sentimental about this kind of thing, I admit, but the new car I bought, though expensive, has so far been worth every penny, and more!  It actually makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit when I think that I could have paid eight months of financing charges on this new one with the money I spent keeping that twenty-year-old heap moving last year.  But I try not to think too hard, in general.  You know what the experts say.

Then there was work.  Oh, my goodness, yes.  Architecture is a very demanding industry, and we have been quite fortunate to be well stocked with some rather challenging projects lately.  But they do take up a lot of time.  I managed to squeeze in my comics around the edges (see the links to the right, especially 6-Commando, which is taking off!) but I am admittedly rather drained at the moment.  On top of all this, of course, was a rather embarrassing computer crash.  It was just the hard drive (“just”) and I did have most (“most”) of my files backed up.  But the ensuing time following the patch-job repairs was a mass of disappointment as item after item came up missing.  Lots of photos I took in Miami are now lost to the elements, as were some drawings I had done a while back.  A shame, but that’s how the digital age works.  But let this be a lesson to all the digital artists out there: there’s no substitute for a good old pencil and paper!  Bristol board and India ink do not crash.  Depend on it.

But now that everything is back up and running, I’ve been able to reload my comics, and get back on track, to some extent.  Hence this post.  Foremost in my mind is the kind-of-but-not-too-rapidly-approaching conclusion of the first chapter of 6-Commando, namely the mountain of editing and touching-up that will be needed once I have the whole thing in hand.  I’ve also been dabbling in a few other comics and art projects, as well, so stay tuned.  If things keep going like this, it’ll be an eventful year here at the Central Committee.

Unspeakably Horrible

December 20th, 2009

I feel it necessary, given that I have this platform (hell, I pay for it!) to note that National Public Radio produces some of the most unspeakably horrible radio programs on planet Earth.  Not bad, mind you – the shows are excellent.  Horrible.  As in, generating a sense of terror and dread.  Now, let me explain what I mean.

Back in college, my roommate and I, being of the intellectual mindset (and I an unacknowledged insomniac) used to listen to the NPR radio program This American Life.  This weekend, I was looking for something to listen to while working on my comic book, and the thought came to me that I had always enjoyed listening to that show in college, and so I threw it on – all the shows are available online.

Evidently, my recollections from college were colored by my insomnia, because the shows I listened to were not what I’d call enjoyable, exactly.  I would call them “sublime,” in the way that the bleak, isolated ruin of a Victorian mansion might cause you to feel a jolt of loneliness and dread if you happened upon it unexpectedly just as your car was running out of fuel in the middle of a midnight blizzard.  In particular, the show that I found most terrible in this way was one ostensibly about “non-apology apologies.”  I turned it on, and instead of a parade of farcical, amusing anecdotes as I remembered it, the entire show was devoted to a single story about the scandalous failure of a cryonics facility in California in the mid-1970’s, and the fact that all the parties concerned were trying not to think about it anymore, mainly because it was so horrible.  I include the link out of completeness, only.  I don’t recommend listening to this if you have a weak constitution.  Maybe it’s just me, and the rest of the world thinks it’s A-Number-One, but just don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Now for starters, the mere idea that people would be so terrified of death that they’d have themselves wrapped in ice and sealed in steel canisters to be thawed out in the indeterminate future is bad enough.  When presented by a typical NPR essayist, whose voice is a slightly lispy, tenorous male monotone, describing the miniutiae of the process, and its ultimate failure, in wrenching detail, the entire effect was outlandish.  Moreover, the underlying idea, that of trapping a person somewhere between life and death, pretty much forever, was never addressed, and it was clear from the interviews that the people were thinking about the two states, life and death, almost interchangeably.  The people were people, but also bodies, they were kind of alive, kind of dead, and kind of both, and were referred to as being in one state or the other pretty much however it suited the person speaking to talk about them.  One of the cryonic, er, “subjects,” had, at the time of her death, left a photograph of herself at about age 25 with a note “This is how I wish to be restored,”  the implication being that the essence of her being was not in any kind of a soul or essential personhood, but in her physical form at a certain time in her life.  Now if that isn’t depravity, I don’t know what is.

It was riveting, of course, and totally engrossing, but somehow, slightly awful.  The dispassionate reading by the essayist in question, intermixed with melancholy instrumental music, was like nothing I’d hever heard; the effect was slightly self-satisfied and voyeuristic.  Look at these wierd people, seemed to be the message.  They really made a mess of things, didn’t they?  Let’s watch.  The entire episode was closed with a six-minute poetry reading by more lispy, monotone voices (male and female) set to the dissonant vibraphone stylings of God-only-knows-who.

I suppose that was the effect they were going for.  But the entire thing was so bizarre in retrospect that there’s little else to be said except to quote Kurtz in Heart of Darkness:

“The horror… the horror!”

The Ayatollah of Rock n’ Rollah

December 17th, 2009

I don’t know if anyone out there reads French, but I do, and I came across this piece in today’s Le Monde.  It concerns Australia, once the last bastion of rugged individualism, succumbing to the urge to censor, filter and control.  An abbreviated piece on the same from Australia’s office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation confirmed it: Australia is building  a system to censor the Internet.  N.B.: The fact that it gained the attention of a left-leaning French news outlet is remarkable in itself! 

Essentially, it amounts to a government blacklist of certain sites deemed inappropriate at the national level, which is then forwarded to ISP’s, who in turn deny access to their users.  The ease with which this can morph into a full-blown government censorship program, if it doesn’t qualify already, is remarkable:  the only thing that keeps it from doing so is the government’s promise that it won’t.  And whenever the government promises not to do something, that means they’re going to do it.  Moreover, no statements about how something is to be blacklisted, who will decide what qualifies, whether there will be any kind of check on the procedure – all these things have taken a backseat to the actual implementation of the system itself.  The morality of a national censorship system is something to be worked out later, once the walls have been built.  I’d expect this from someplace like the People’s Republic of China, but Australia?  God bless us.

The current defense of this is that it’s being done for the children, which is not an argument entirely without merit:  there’s plenty of abhorrent material on the internet, God knows.  But I question whether it’s really the Government’s job to protect children from reading or seeing things on the internet.  Isn’t that for parents to do?  And given that the system seems also built to censor material from adults as much as from children, the problem is amplified.

Who’s to say that once this system is in place, the decision can’t be taken that material that opposes, say, climate change legislation (this site, for example!) is harmful, because it might cause people to damage the environment?  Or that certain music or artwork might need to be suppressed, and the people protected from the negative influences of the ideology it expresses?  Or even, simply, that a certain standard of behavior among citizens might need to be upheld, and any material not supporting it therefore needs to be kept from the public view?  I have very little faith in a government-appointed “independent agency” being willing to limit its own powers in this matter, left- or right-wing, whichever the case, and the fact that the supposed experts in the Australian government see this as a very enlightened and forward-thinking move is the proof.

The domineering influence of the Daddy State has become so pervasive, however, that I am left with little doubt that it’s already too late to stop this modern version of the Index of Forbidden Books.  It’s only a matter of time before we end up with the same thing here in North America.

Oh My God, I Agree With CNN

December 7th, 2009

punyThis is going to leave a sour taste in my mouth.  CNN has posted a smart, balanced and well-written editorial on the same subject I posted on last week.  I may actually not be alone out there!

The upshot: sidestepping debate is not a substitute for rational discussion, nor is having contempt for your opponents the same thing as being right.  This is exactly what I’ve been trying to say for the longest time.  Climate Change or whatever you want to call it may well be a problem in need of some kind of response.  Fine.  Let’s have that debate.  But lies and fabrication poison the well from which that debate springs, particularly when perpetrated with a sense that being right entitles you to make lies and fabrications to get your point across.  This morning, on National Public Radio, a commentator claimed that skepticism about climate change is essentially a mental disorder, akin to psychological denial, because the problem is “just too big to cope with.”  I seem to recall that about twelve months ago, dissention was the highest form of patriotism.  Now it means you’re mentally deranged.  Good thing we have the Worthies to look after us.  All we have to do is submit.

And so our friends are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss how Europe and America will need to be dismantled to pay for the rest of the world’s “development.”  This may mark me as a Jolly Bad Sport, but I find it odd that a country like Tadjikistan or Bolivia can pursue its own naked self-interest and be seen as enlightened and progressive, while for the United States or France, doing the same is imperialistic and selfish.  Moreover, the words “legally binding” are now being spoken with distressing regularity, though nobody is saying who will be enforcing such laws, or how, or even if, they will be elected, and, thus, whether or not we’ll ever be able to throw them out once they’re in.  Probably it will be a self-perpetuating oligarchy, made up of the same kind of career politicoes we have right now, the kind who say “we” when they really mean “you.”  And you can bet that they’ll stretch whatever authority they are given to its very limit.  Nobody ever takes power they don’t intend to use, and whenever someone in power says they won’t do something, you can bet they’re about to do it.  Next stop: slow death by starvation for any country which still has enough sense of sovereignty left in it to resist this obvious power-grab.  I guess it’s for their own good.

Even the language used to describe the problem changes on a daily basis: it’s gone from global warming, to climate change, to anthropogenic climate change.  Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?  Well, Orwell called this by its name: a perversion of language in an attempt to conceal the truth.  How can there be any kind of rational discussion of anything if we can’t even agree on a set of terms to discuss the thing with?  It’s not at all surprising that the whole thing is cloaked in post-Marxist colonial grievance.  And we get even farther from a reasonable debate.  And nobody cares.  There was a time when the mere suggestion of such a thing as is being discussed in Denmark would cause people to take up arms.  Now we just change the channel.

This entire situation leaves me sick to my stomach.  Right now I feel like signing up for the first colony ship off this rock.

Hot Time In the Old Town Tonight

December 2nd, 2009

khhhhsmIf it weren’t for scandal, what a cold, heartless world this would be.  Might even counteract some of that Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever they call it.  And right now, there are some people feeling the heat on this one.

All right, enough bad puns.  But everyone’s favorite bit of the moment is the flap over Climate (capital C) researcher Phil Jones’ hacked emails, many of which are being claimed by Big C skeptics as containing evidence of doctored results.  The Guardian issued an editorial alleging fanaticism by so-called Climate Change Deniers (the reference to Holocaust Deniers is not lost on those capable of sapient thought, by the way), and quoting Green (capital G) economist Nick Stern at length, to wit: “”If they are muddled and confused, they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused.” 

Ah.  Confusion, eh?  Well, the Climate folks have no-one but themselves to blame.  But it doesn’t look too great, when you look at it.  Sidestepping, for a moment, the fact that Prof. Jones had his personal files rifled and his private correspondence outed in a highly unethical and possibly illegal way, there remains the fact that the genie, so to speak, is out of the bottle, and the response is one of indignation and openly gainsaying the questions this situation raises, without engaging any of them in anything like a rational way.  If there’s been an implication made that the results of a scientific study are being nudged or falsified to produce a desired political effect, I think it ought to be directly explained and addressed.  I don’t think it will happen, of course – the whole thing will dissolve into pandemonium and will soon be swept under the carpet amid the run up to the next round of treaty talks as we organize to fight the global threat of… whatever.

The New York Times was a little more level-headed, thankfully, and gave a much better assessment: simply shouting down your opponents is not the same as refuting them.  “Contempt for critics is evident over and over again in the hacked e-mail messages,” writes Times editorialist John Tierney on December 1, “as if the scientists were a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians. Yes, some of the skeptics have political agendas, but so do some of the scientists.”

Precisely.  As a matter of fact, I’d venture to say that the scientists’ agendas are even more dangerous than those of their opponents, because they are cloaking them in the mantle of scientific irrefutability.  Science, as such, is seen as a monolithic truth, unsassailable and undebatable.  But Scientists are still human beings, and they still succumb to the same pressures as the rest of us, and that amplifies the importance of seeing to it that they are held to the same standard as the rest of us.  Falsification, fabrication, tweaking or fudging, whatever really is the case here, to me it goes to show that there simply is no substitute for real, actual, open debate.  It is the death of our faith in an open society that is allowing this kind of thing to go on; which is fostering, in fact, a mentality at all levels that the ends justify the means, and that it’s okay to lie if your intentions are good.

A friend of mine recently asked me what I thought about Climate Change.  Though he assumed my argument would be largely economic, what I told him was that I thought it was being used as a cover for a kind of neo-fascism, which I think surprised him.  But honestly, look at it.  Private property under state control.  A bureaucratic-scientific complex that claims authority to govern from a scientific theory.  A publicly-promulgated theory of imminent social collapse that can only be averted by submission to a mass movement.  And on, and on, and on.  I find the whole thing terrifying, and yes, even I cannot help but be frightened by Green propaganda.  Just look at the offerings in what passes for our arts culture these days: films, books, newspapers and magazines are all obsessed with doom, disaster and the end of times, and the solution is always, always, a single charismatic hero, who leaves the deniers to suffer and delivers the believers to their destiny.  The prospect of a manmade end to civilization does frighten me, but the end that’s really the danger right now is not that we’ll destroy our planet, but that this pseudo-science/pseudo-religion will become the excuse to dismantle what’s left of two centuries of progress towards liberty and human freedom.

I grew up in the last years of the Cold War, when words like freedom and liberty weren’t as kitschy as they are today, and when they actually meant what they said, at least to me.  Now liberty is a word that’s almost totally fallen out of fashion – I can’t even say it here without sounding like some kind of a flag-waving reactionary!  Freedom usually means freedom to choose what bar to head to on Friday nights.  Freedom is something to be handed out, or restricted, or regulated.  Everything is adversarial and combattive: it’s us versus them!  And when backed up by supposed scientific certitude, the tidal wave of “social change” threatens to engulf us all.  If you oppose it, it means you “fear change” or need to be “educated.”  I can’t be the only one who finds this frame of mind unbearably terrifying.

I mean, these Climate Researchers are obviously just as capable of bending reality as the rest of us, so what’s to say they aren’t doing it at any particular time, or even all the time?  I see studies presented as faits-accomplis, but I’m certainly not clear on how their experiments are being structured, how they are controlled, and by what means the hypotheses they are testing are confirmed or modified.  And even so, I question, at the very bottom of this entire environmental debate, whether any scientific theory is sufficient reason to impose systems of social control that will restrict and limit the cause of human liberty.  It strikes me, in the end, as science untempered by philosophy, and history has taught us time and again that that is a recipe for disaster.  Has our faith in democracy fallen so far that we no longer trust it, even when it has delivered the West from disasters that in earlier ages brought empires to their knees?  Does this culture really value humanity so little that it sees its highest ideals as an obstacle?  Do you really think that the planet can be managed like some kind of machine?

To sum it all up, let me phrase one question I’ve put to leftists and environmentalists repeatedly over the past ten years.  Say all of these changes and agendas, all the scientific theories, the management, the studies, the whole apparatus of the new social order; say someone put it all together, and assembled a plan, and put it to a vote.

What if the vote were a “NO?”

In ten years, I have never received a satisfactory answer to that question.

Desperate Times?

November 30th, 2009

The spam that shows up in my page’s spam queue has been getting progressively more bizarre lately.  Today’s addition, evidently written by a Faulknerian idiot man-child, was too good not to share:

“I am from Dominican and now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: ‘Blackjack, i recommend that online twenty-one is your greatest house, and the most rich following you can cause about squadron.’”

Excuse me?

If you needed proof that you cannot string together random words and produce speech, here it is.

Right on the Edge

November 23rd, 2009

choofasm

This week was something of a lesson for me in just how precarious the balance of all the influences in my life can be.  Well, frankly, the last several weeks have been one big exercise in the same, but this past week in particular.  I won’t specify the exact circumstances, as it involves other people who will likely not want to be mentioned in some amateurish online posting like this, but the long and short of it was that what should otherwise have been a few minor disruptions in my schedule instead ended up throwing me totally off balance.

I had to work late one night this week, then the next night went (not exactly at the last minute, but still somewhat unexpectedly) to a reception given by the American Institute of Architects with a friend of mine (she’s also an architect, incidentally!).  Then, as compensation for the late night midweek, I had a half-day on Friday.  This should have made for a long, relaxing weekend, but strangely enough, it totally threw off my body chemistry and I ended up feeling terrible all weekend.  I slept horribly on Friday night (I suffer from clinical insomnia, though thankfully it’s infrequent these days), woke up in a daze, and then spent most of Saturday moving absently around my apartment, getting up, sitting down, moving around some more.  Very small things seemed to annoy me intensely, such as the vibrating noise my computer makes, and the fact that my cat seemd to want to jump all over me every ten seconds. It wasn’t until the end of the day that I realized that I had a mound of paperwork still to do (I’m trying to get approval to take the architectural licensing exam), not to mention an unfinished and extremely complicated page in my comic book sitting on my desk.  Something seemed to be interfering with my mind – I simply couldn’t lock on to anything that needed to be done.

This left me feeling extraordinarily confused and stressed out for most of the weekend.  There were, of course, other factors at work that aren’t really fit for public cnsumption, as already stated, but it really made me realize that it doesn’t take a whole lot to throw you off your center.  Even seemingly beneficial things like an unexpected half day contributed to my sense of unease and discomfort.  Really, I think I’m just a creature of routine, as well as someone who’s taken on a lot of really intense and mentally stressful work.  My comic I try to update weekly, but have not been able to keep up with quite on schedule recently, and that has been gnawing at me a little bit.  It seems to be getting harder as winter approaches – too many committments, too many draws on my attention.  I sometimes think I’d be fine if we could somehow institute a 36-hour day.

What contributes to this is the fact that I kind of live two lives at the moment, and both are very tenuous and defined almost entirely by a single activity: architecture and cartooning.  The comic book I’m writing is easily dismissible, when I bring it up with people, as being “just a hobby,” but it’s really extremely important to me and has come to take over a great deal of my life – almost all of my time outside the office, as a matter of fact.  So just “not doing it,” which to most people seems like a matter of indifference, isn’t really something I can do, and the recent suggestions, direct and otherwise, that I just not bother with it have simply stressed me out even more, however well-intentioned they may be.  Not doing it would be like losing my job, something else I obsess about almost constantly, even in the best of times.  It’s all mainly a matter of how wrapped up I am in what I do, and how much of my life is defined by my work.  It’s not really healthy, maybe, but it’s just how I’m living these days, and this week sort of threw it in my face more than I’d like.

I did finally finish that page, by the way, though only with much difficulty.  I only finished the inks, though – the colors, once again, will have to wait.  Another missed deadline.  And my mind begins to spin once again.

The Big “E”

November 4th, 2009

smukWellsir.  Yesterday was Election Day in the United States, and let me tell you, participatory democracy really hits me right in the creamy middle.  It seems to have been something of a major win, on the local level, for the Republican Party, currently the minority party in the Federal Government, which managed to capture two governorships and a large number of municipal posts at the state, county and local levels.

All of this was really of only passing interest to me, as my party, true to form, showed very little interest in any local races, probably saving itself for another hopeless run at the presidency in 2012.  This is one of my two gripes about the election, that the Libertarian Party makes no attempt to build any kind of a base of good governance at the local level, and therby ruins any chances we have of making any kind of a national impact.  It’s no wonder we’re a perennial laughingstock, or that people think of us as “wasted votes.”  It actually makes me want to run for office, but for the fact that I’ve told far too many lies and been involved in far too much nonsense in my life to be anything like a serious candidate for anything above dog catcher.  So apart from shouting viciously from the sidelines, I guess I’m stuck with this party.

The other gripe I had was one I commented on over at the Virginia Conservative, that in this country, and in fact in most of the West, Leftism, even to the extent that it is authoritarian, overbearing, wasteful, intrusive and in nearly all other ways offensive to the sensibilities of a liberal republic, is still seen as the yardstick by which everything else in this country is measured.  It’s as if centralized, authority-driven statism is the natural, unmoving, undebatable center of the universe, and if you don’t agree, you just need to be “educated.”  Or ignored.

I’ve been through this before and the biggest effect it has is a general chilling of any kind of sensible debate on the merits of centralized, government-orchestrated social change.  Call me an idealist, but I tend to think it should be the job of the government to stay out of people’s business, and let them live as they see fit (and accept the consequences thereof!)  This crap that’s constantly thrown up about “social costs” of various things is just a smokescreen for “Progressivism,” itself a euphemism for “I coerce you, you coerce me.”  Reducing debate to “education” is particularly offensive for its didactic connotations, as though there is one single form of society that is already predetermined, and needs to be handed down from on high to the vast ignorant masses.  It calls to mind, in particular, an instance in graduate school where the teacher of a certain course said I was thinking too critically about the subject matter, and should simply accept it, “because it’s true – it’s just true!”  This was graduate school, mind you.  And it’s indicative of just how pervasive this mindset has become.

And yet, everywhere, the rhetoric of both Left and Right is still wrapped up in the other side needing to be “educated.”  Whatever happened to “debate” or “persuasion?”  They have too many connotations of equality, I suppose – if you’re trying to persuade someone, you have to start by admitting that they may have a legitimate reason to disagree with you; if you’re “educating” them, they’re simply ignorant.

The greatest sign of this is the enormous amount of paper being wasted in Congress these days to write laws that are increasingly complicated and entangling, by design, one almost assumes.  It’s interesting to remember that the organic law of our country, defining the entire functioning of the government of the Republic, was laid out in a mere in four pages.  The European Constitution, by comparison, is more than 350 pages long.  We did this by enacting the now-nearly-forgotten principle of “assumed right,” that unless something was specifically illegal, you had the right to do it.  Nowadays we spend most of our time trying to enumerate just what our rights even are anymore, and have so picked apart our “living document” that it effectivley means whatever the party in power wants it to mean.

All this is done in the name of “protecting” us.  From what?  Ourselves?  I don’t know.  Seems to me government should be about process, not results.  Let us seek out our own results.  Is that really such a bad thing?  I tell you, anyone who thinks that the United States is “too big” to function so simply, well, there are forty six states, four commonwealths, nine territories, over 30,000 counties, and over 150,000 towns, villages, boroughs and cities ready to help out.  Isn’t it time we let them?