The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

§ 4:   I’m Only Biased Towards Prejudice

How many times a day do you hear them? More importantly, just what do “bias” and “prejudice” really mean to you? Do they mean the same things they meant 50 years ago? 100 years? 200??

Back out on my familiar limb, I’m going to throw caution to the wind and say “no”. I can’t say that the usage of these words was even the same when I was a schoolkid. I’m not concerned with using a dictionary for reference here, because, well, a dictionary just lists all the definitions. It doesn’t bother to tell you which one came first. The different meanings are cataloged in order of common usage, not age. I believe this means the most general definition is most likely the first. Therefore, a major individual situation is necessary to add a particular definition to a word.

Now, because of the idiocy of slavery and racism towards blacks, the definition of the word of “prejudice” actually includes skin color as a factor, like the word “politics” includes government as the major factor. (And we all know how well that turned out!)

Regardless of what we may do to the recorded meanings of words, we are still acting out the basic usage in most cases. Nowhere in our vocabulary do we make this more obvious than with the evil twin cousins of the English language -‘bias’ and “prejudice”.

“Bias”, I feel, is a general term to indicate a preference for a person or a thing based on the belief that the preferred one is better. Like the old mom’s line “he’s a good boy, but then again, I’m biased”. You can have a bias for a sports team, a brand name – anything or anybody. Nowadays though, you can also have a bias against something. This is, I feel, an overly generous addition to the usage of the word.

Why would a word be forced to work overtime? Who tells a noun that it’s gotta put in double shifts all week? (for that matter, who pays unemployment for out of work adverbs??) Just like in real life, it’s because someone got a transfer.

“Prejudice” was the word that really stood for the negative preference. Prejudice is about not liking something. It’s about wanting that thing to lose or go away. We are prejudiced towards the visiting team because we want our team to win. Well, we used to be.

All that has changed. Now, if you are biased, you are against the other team (not for your own), and if you are prejudiced, you are a racist. Forget about the sports analogy, buddy, this word’s out of the game. Our nation’s own past misdeeds have reassigned this word to new duties for the forseeable future. The civil strife that never should have been had no choice but to leave it’s marks on society, and this is one of them.

The reflection of a great mistake, chiseled into the meaning of 9 letters.

In spite of all this, we still act by the old definitions every day. Some of us trumpet our biases and wail our prejudices. Some of us just quietly steer around our prejudices, mapping the course to our biases, where we find peace, or at least, a good lunch deal. We are biased towards everything from our kid’s ball team to the gang that works at our regular hangouts. We are biased for the sports that we had fun playing when we were kids, and we are prejudiced against the ones we sucked at. We carry this love/hate relationship with us throughout our lives, in our food, our music, theatre, movies, our clothes, and, most unfortunately, our associations with people.

We clean each others clocks everyday in our brains, sizing each other up and filling out our tedious little sub-conscious lists of who to like and who to dislike – and why! We come up with all kinds of reasons to include or exclude people from our lives. As with all things, we’re just organizing our individual worlds to suit each unique perspective and identity. (Gosh, that’s so, like, you know?)

We call it freedom of choice.

For the most part, it works darn well. But, the thing about it is, freedom of choice only applies to the biases in our lives. It’s like candy, rewarding us with a sweet, head-spinning rush of joy. We choose our biases the way we choose our candy. We grab what we like best, and we grin about having it. When we’re choosing our freedoms, life is our candystore.

We don’t, however, choose our prejudices. They are the result of our exposure to the biases of others that conflict with ours. They represent the things that make us uncomfortable beyond our control. Everybody has them, whether they admit it or not. The thing is, prejudices run the gamut from petty idiocy to global endangerment.

In addition to the current “skin color” definition, we harbour many other wonderful, “enriching” prejudices. We have them towards the people who dress differently, and those people have them towards us because we’re looking at them. We’re prejudiced against the store that treated us badly, the TV show that we thought wasn’t funny, that band so-and-so likes that sounds like trash, or the cranky old fart who says the music we’re listening to sounds like trash. Our prejudices bely both the petty annoyances and the major upheavals in our lives. It’s not uncommon for all the close relatives of, say, an alcoholic, to develop a prejudice towards drinking – sometimes against anyone who drinks at all. You could substitute ANY problem a person can have, and the equation will hold true – some kind of prejudice will be produced. It is part of the way our minds cope with unwanted influences.

The really big problem is the tendency to ignore or dismiss the subjects of our prejudices out of hand because of our particular discomfort. We do it all the time. We assume that, because “they” engage in behavior that we don’t like, that everything else “they” do is invalid as well. We stop listening to the words and start judging the content by our loathing for the individual. Had a drug problem? Can’t know what you’re talking about. Must be totally zoned, man. Were you a gambler? Better watch my wallet! You get the idea. Everyone from immigrants to senor citizens feels it everyday. Face it, if no one is prejudiced against you, you are probably dead, or living on the new side of Antarctica.

So what can we do? We could be more patient. We can try to be more educated so that we will recognize smart things when we hear them, instead of dismissing them because of the body-piercings on the speaker (or the lack of same).

Mostly, if we learn, we win. If we don’t, we all lose.

 
©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

<<–prev   top    next–>>

Return to the beginning of the book

---

The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

§ 3:   The Counselor’s Dilemma

The pressures of everyday life are mounting higher with each passing year. The toll on humanity is incalculable, manifesting itself in some of the ugliest ways imaginable. And the victims of this outrageous terror?

Our spirits.

Yes, our very souls are under attack from within and without, plagued by the stresses of life that we create, and just as often, the stresses we don’t. Though we tend to set up many of our own disasters through greed, haste, ignorance, or pride, we don’t plan well for the disasters initiated by others.

The feeling of remorse or regret for something you’ve actually done wrong is relatively easy to get over (in less serious situations). Admitting your fault and seeing to its resolution usually takes care of the disaster and any accompanying emotions for all concerned.

When the stress comes from outside, the story is different. No matter what anyone says, there is a feeling of helplessness that can’t be avoided or denied. There is no true ability to confess or atone for the wrong. There is only the choice between blaming the other party for doing wrong, or blaming yourself for letting them!!!

Now the tricky part.

Left to ourselves, we will usually make a choice, good or bad. When we choose how to react to a problem, we are almost always governed by emotions. The strongest of those emotions are, unfortunately, depression and anger.

Yes, our old buddies depression and anger are just about the only reason we even know someone has a problem. Left on our own, our most immediate response to being screwed over is quite often anger. A great deal of the time, we make the “good anger” choice by focusing it as discipline at the source of the problem. We do this every time we send a meal back to the kitchen in a restaurant. When we return a defective toy to the store. When the credit card company messes up our bill.

(And of course, some of us go off the deep end, bringing up the basic reason for the concept of “state prisons”.)

In the lesser scenario, though, we almost unanimously support the anger of the aggrieved individual, as it relates to a tangible, material problem. By doing this, we diffuse the anger, and it subsides fairly soon afterwards.

Ah, but there’s the rub. Most of today’s real stresses come from the intangibles – from our dreams, our fears, our hopes and self-confidence, our aspirations, skills and talents. When these are the battlefields, anger is usually ineffective or even more damaging. Now, depression is the obvious choice. Left alone, we will all banish ourselves to the depths of despair.

We don’t want to do this, so we look to our peers and loved ones for help. All too often, though, we do not find the support we seek. We find instead, admonition and criticism. “Well, you shouldn’t have”…”I would never have done that….” “Oh, you’re exaggerating!!!” “Well, that’s your side of it.” And, of course, the king of them all – “There are people ‘homeless, dying, starving, oppressed, etc. [insert your favorite global disaster]‘ so you really have no problem at all!”

As true as any of these may be, when it comes to consoling someone, they simply do more – well, no, only – damage. Belittling the pain does not bring relief, only the desperate feeling of helplessness, and the need to justify. As this dire need is further criticized and dismissed, it grows into anger. Keep in mind, this is not anger at the situation that caused the depression. This is anger at the person sought out for help. In addition to whatever the job, career, relationship, or personal stress that started it all, the poor unfortunate’s heart is now broken by the hopeful healer! This is where, I fear, many suicides come from.

You see, in every case, no matter what, there is a real problem to be solved. An actual transgression, a real frustration, or an obstacle. Something to be overcome. Sometimes you have to dig a little to find it. Many people just blurt it out right from the start. Sometimes it’s too obvious to see. It depends on the original source of the pain.

Relationships are sometimes difficult to help people with, but they are still basically a no-brainer. We accept romantic problems as tangible, and we are rarely anything but supportive.

Likewise, when kids are involved, our tendencies are towards support and resolution. We have an unwritten rule that you can’t go kick a kid in the dream.

You are however, allowed to bash, belittle, vilify, and crush any adult’s dream anytime you wish. Once you grow up, all your dreams, aspirations, skills, talents and plans are targets on the range.

Want to own a chain of restaurants? Support, support, support. Got a problem with the franchise manager screwing you up? Problem to solve, let’s help.

Want to be something a little more intangible, like a musician, actor, writer, or artist? Why? Why? Why? Got a problem with a publication, a club, or a gallery? “Oh, you’re exaggerating!!!” “Well, that’s your side of it.” Made any money at all doing it? Well it’s just play to everyone else, and they think you’d do it for free, so they don’t hesitate to tell you how lucky you are because you do something you love. If you protest any more, they inevitably hit you with the aforementioned “king”.

So meanwhile, “whoever” is still getting away with “whatever”, and our alleged good friend is spiraling ever downward. Especially now, since we don’t hangout too much. After all he/she’s always bummed out or pissed – and that’s no fun.

Their funeral will be a riot, though, won’t it?

OK, that’s harsh. Or is it? We are constantly finding ways to diminish the power of death. We live longer. We die of less diseases. We even die of less injuries than ever before.

But we take our own lives at an alarming and growing rate.

Yeah, it scares me too. It’s probably my greatest fear for humanity. We are evolving at a quickening pace, hitting the gas a little with every new technology. With every mile down the cosmic road, we come closer and closer to being independent of physical labor. Once that threshold is crossed, our dreams, fears, hopes, self-confidence, aspirations, skills and talents will be all we really are.

All the reasons that a soul has to live.

In that future day, with only our spirits or our souls to define us, we will only be able to measure society by the integrity and quality of the intangibles that we as individuals contribute. Our very spirits will be the population. With our bodies efficiently repaired and life extended through modern and future medicine, there will be only one true loss, one crack to slip into.

The death of a soul.

I know, we’re getting religious here. Or are we? Yes, most faiths have some kind of basis in the existence of the soul, some believing it eternal. There is a point where they all agree, though, and that is how the soul manifests itself.

Most would agree that our soul’s face is our personality. But is that all? You know by now that I don’t think so! How we behave, how we carry ourselves, how we treat others, how we react to the way others treat us – this is our soul – who we are.
Right?

Our personality is just the outer shell of our soul.
The inside?

Dreams, fears, hopes, self-confidence, aspirations, skills, and talents.

And now, I suppose you want me to explain all this metaphysical mumbo-jumbo so that it makes actual sense, or you’re going back to the den to watch the ballgame?

Who’s playing?

But, seriously folks (thanks, we’ll be here all week!) It’s really not about any supernatural or cosmically spiritual manifestation of the universal or divine energy or any other highfalutin’ crap I could invent to blame it on. It’s just the one, basic rule, often called the “Golden Rule”.

“He with the gold has the higher tax bracket.”

Oops. Sorry. Scratch that. I really mean the other “Golden Rule”. That one that went on and on about treating others as you would treat – what was it? A dog? A pest? A stone in your path? A fruit tree to harvest? An animal to be slaughtered?

We humans invent a new way to break that law about every 20 seconds, yet still manage to invoke it whenever we’re on the receiving end. Many times, there’s little we can do. One way we can make a difference is in how we console our peers when these emotional disasters strike them.

Simply finish the proverb. Put ‘YOURSELF’ into the equation. Console the way you would want to be consoled if you had exactly their problem as they describe it. Toward that end, I would like to offer a few guidelines that I have learned from dealing with the stress and problems with various folks in my years of teaching, producing and performing.

I call them “Three Bad Things To Bring Up When Someone’s Down”:

1. Don’t say there is no pain.
If you don’t acknowledge the pain or the situation, you will never find out what’s really going on, and you will fix nothing. The more you deny the problem’s existence, the deeper the depression will go, and now you will be negatively attached to it as well. Open the gate. Admit the pain.

2. Never one-up someone when they’re down.
By far, the poorest way to convince someone that you understand their pain is to say you’ve been through it, only worse! This makes only you feel good. The object of your efforts, however, is more depressed, and now empathetic and guilty about your experience. The general feeling created is “I’m unimportant, and my problems aren’t worth solving.” You should withhold such an anecdote, unless it is less severe. Better yet, use those stories as a way to investigate or suggest a solution.

3. Don’t kick anyone in the dream.
This is the big one. Where most damage is done. If a person is depressed about something that you don’t understand, aren’t good at, or don’t like, BIG DEAL!!! It’s not your soul, for crying out loud; so try and help from their point of view! For example, what if you were a musician. What would you want? What would define that dream? Could it be, maybe one of the things you already know about, like, oh, a Platinum Record or a Grammy? Most importantly, you shift your criticism to the support side. Now you’re trying to help figure out how to get one. There’s only a few bars of blues when you do this!

Obviously, I’m talking about some pretty general things here. As a member of the entertainment community, I use a very close example, yet, one which is widely publicized. The “Artist’s Angst” is not new to culture in anyway. No artist, from scribe to sculptor to singer, is validated by their peers until they have achieved the tangible – the Grammy, the Oscar, the Pulitzer – or in many cases, the money!

This holds as true for a man with a better donut recipe as for an aspiring film director. The pain of climbing the mountain comes with the path, but the dream is up that steep, winding road. “Get off the road” is not an answer. Getting up the road is the quest.

So the true test of the Golden Rule comes not of our actions, but our reactions to others. This brings up that other old cliché. And our misuse of it.

“Walk a mile in my shoes” doesn’t mean put them on and walk around your backyard. Maybe we should say, instead, “walk a mile in my footsteps”. In other words, try to imagine going where I have gone, and trying to go where I want to be.

By using these age old rules, we effectively battle depression and all the baggage that comes with it – crime, addiction, abuse, neglect, and yes, thank you, suicide.

We will know we’ve truly grown when we matter-of-fact-ly regard each other as the spirited souls we are, defined by the most important standards in the cosmos.

Dreams, fears, hopes, self-confidence, aspirations, skills, and talents.

 
©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

<<–prev   top    next–>>
Return to the beginning of the book

---

From Oxford University Press:

refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating public or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.

a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

the ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

 

---

 
This definition of socialism is valid.

The common distinction of Nazis obfuscating racism and nationalism as socialism is also accurate.

All the myriad modern political criticisms voiced as Nazi, socialist, and communist comparisons are accurate as well.

Historically, politically, and situationally. Accurate.

But, not from your real “Funk and Wagnalls’” point of view. Not according to the words themselves.

These are basically dirty words in America. They bring scorn and derision from many. Torrents of online comments and forums are rife with eager right wingers slamming liberals as “socialist”. Eventually, as “commies”, and of course, soon after, as “Nazis”.

Theses comments represent the individuals understanding of these terms from knowledge of their application through history. All 3 terms are instantly associated with cruel, brutal, evil regimes and widespread abuse, corruption, murder, and imperial plans for military global domination.

Of course, from the current Communist view, we Americans are “greedy imperialists’”out to take monetary and military control of the world. While we suspect as a society that our financial sector has maybe too big of an appetite, I think few of us believe that our leaders or citizens have ever wanted to militarily control the world or, in fact, even to be an empire of colonies around the globe. I think we genuinely want everyone to have their choice and the knowledge to make it wisely. We don’t see ourselves as the ruthless conquerors we observed the Soviet Union to be.

So here we are. Completely divergent socio-political systems at odds with each other and the global economy batted about between them like a shuttlecock. The other is so evil, mine has to be right. So both will tell you, with plenty of horrifying indisputable examples of why the enemy is so bad.

What’s missing – that hidden truth in the middle.

The clarity of the words themselves. What do they really mean?

Well, we can dump “Nazi” because it was created by a murderous lunatic and is only an acronym for his intolerant evil movement. Please use it sparingly. And alone. Or not at all, maybe.

No such luck with the other two. They’re real words twisted past recognition.

“Communism” and “socialism” are words that have been re-defined by history and politics.

Even Karl Marx himself was so inane as to call them a “political struggle”.

Communism – from “commune” or “community”. “Socialism”- from “social” or “society”.

These words mean, basically, “for the community” or “for society”. It’s not politics.

In fact, it’s an economic/administration system that could only work as a classless democracy with voluntary and agreed levels of community ownership and responsibility.

No government on Earth’s ever tried this without military ruling-class domination and the virtual elimination of the middle class. Not Russia, not Cuba, and certainly not China. And the Nazis? Socialists? Hardly! As soon as Marx made it a political issue, he gave it to uncounted current and future despots as a new strategy.

The only example of socialism or communism ever attempted in the modern age was by – you guessed it – hippies in the late 60’s.

A “commune” was a community of people acting as one entity, sharing all assets and duties equally.

They ran into immediate difficulty because all needs and skills are not equally applicable. A variable scale has to come into play to account for demand, supply, skills, priority and value.

This goes against the philosophy itself unless you add individual ownership and capitalism to generate growth and stability.

In other words, free-market capitalism.

Socialism demands a common base for all and a common right to improvement and enrichment for all, balanced by the desire to contribute to the base by those who grow.

China is learning as we watch. You can’t sustain a true communist society of billions without growing economically. They are starting to evolve, albeit at a snail’s pace, to a free market-socialist hybrid. They’re seeing a dramatic increase in middle class as they take on a more active role in the world marketplace.

They have a long way to go, but you can see that they’re adding bits of capitalism here and there to keep the system running. While democracy may be light years away there, China is in a prime position to set the world example for nationalized health care and meeting public welfare/retirement needs.

Serious human rights issues remain from the military origins of Chinese communism, and these will need to be overcome as well before they can achieve this prosperous blend of east/west philosophy.

Simply put – they must find the necessary blend of socialist and capitalist practices to ensure maximum stability or they will die financially like the Soviet Union.

In any case, the stage will be set for a new attempt at democratic, free-market, socially-oriented government.

Think of it. The American dream – you’re right try to achieve anything you want and reap the fortunes you earn, anchored by the safety of knowing you have shelter, food, education, and communication at your disposal – you can try, really try, without risking your home, your livelihood, your family’s health. You can grow, earn, profit, and participate in your government. You can truly choose.

I have only ever seen one example of this kind of government.

Star Trek.

In this fictional Utopia of the future, it seems the lowest one falls is a place to stay with a replicator, communications port, and medical help if they need it. Above and beyond that – the universe is the limit.

You live a life of freedom of choice, of speech, of endeavor. You vote. You participate in your government’s affairs. Your politicians know this and act responsibly. (Ok, even I couldn’t keep a straight face on that one.)

In the Federation’s day, things are still made. People are still employed privately and civilly. There are still successful folks, and folks who just get by on the basics.

If we had to nitpick about how a fictional society works;

All housing isn’t arbitrarily free. You live in a small, clean, pleasant, healthy, and accessible studio apartment with a bath, sleeping area, a dining area, replicator, and communications hub. The furniture is built in and it retracts if you want to buy your own custom furniture. You can still buy or lease any size or style of home, but this one is free as long as you need it.

A basic communications system probably would give you all the same kind of things that are free or normal for general consumption now. A computer keyboard/lcd port for internet/Library access, news, TV, some entertainment, communication, correspondence, and education. Special programming and features would cost extra.

The replicator might come with about 500 normal everyday household patterns, from chicken soup, salads, and hot dogs to pajamas and screwdrivers. A small selection of toys and games. Specialty items, like designers clothes, sports equipment, musical instruments, and recreational items would cost. You’d buy the pattern for that brand-name tennis racket, and if it broke you could make another.

You see, you still can have a job and get paid. And you don’t have to spend 90% of your pay struggling just to exist. If this isn’t enough for you – if you want more, you can go after it all you want without fear of dying alone in the street.

And when you make it, you can have a mansion somewhere and your own shuttle-pod. Maybe even your own transporter. You can replicate Gucci underwear and famous gourmet recipes.

Gene Roddenberry’s world of our future implies a true fusion of democratic, capitalist, and socialist philosophies.

Does that make Star Trek a bunch of pinko-commie Nazis?

We can’t even use the word socialist without attaching the idiocy of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. The term itself is now vilified beyond repair.

So, my point stands. No one has ever tried to implement a proper working blend of democratic, capitalist, and socialist practices.

Well, a couple wanted to, but they immediately thought, “Ok, we can free everybody from this tyranny if we just get control of the military, banks, and broadcasters.” You know the rest.

It will be hundreds of years before mention of socializing or nationalizing anything is not tainted by these horrific examples.

And so it goes.

The subject of “socialism”, of welfare itself, in any form, is now immutably wed to the despicable crimes of fascist, insane, despotic megalomaniacs bending Marx’s already misguided words.

I’m just saying. Nothing but the shams of military dictators has ever seen the light of day.

Some of the most stoned people on the planet figured out by 1969 that socialism alone doesn’t work because it kills the economy. “Man, like, I need bread to make bread, you know, but i gotta sell some bread to get some.”

But, because of the historical morons I’ve named, it will take until Star Trek is real before the concepts themselves will be mentioned without generating revulsion.

I suppose we can wait. We’ve waited all this time already.

What’s another 300 years?

▲ top ▲
 

---

The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

§ 2:   Choose one – (a) (a) (a)

There are some things in life we get to choose, and some things we don’t. Well, okay, there’s a lot of things we don’t. Way more that we don’t. Okay, most of life is spent dealing with choices we didn’t make.

I am male. I did not choose that.

I am “white”. I did not choose that.

I am American. I did not choose that.

I am Italian, Irish, and a Yankee as well. All choices made for me by the circumstances of my birth. I also grew up Catholic, Democrat, and blue collar (not surprising considering my ethnic background and Great Lakes area environment). As many do, I adopted my family ways in most aspects of life. I was an altar boy. I rooted for Kennedys. I did basically whatever my folks did until I was old enough to understand and question things for myself and begin to learn which choices I could make and which I couldn’t.

Well, I couldn’t change the fact that I was a white male. I couldn’t change my height. I could change my weight and appearance (to some degree). Health is a choice we can often make. Appearance is always a choice we can make at some level.

I was raised a Catholic, like both of my parents’ families. I went to Catholic schools and played in the church sports leagues. When I got older I learned more about other faiths. At first I questioned everything, tried to read everything and understand all the other faiths. In the end, I still considered myself basically Catholic, but I have a much better understanding of the world and other religions.

The biggest choice I could make is my behavior. Everything I am, everything I want, everything I do is affected by my behavior – my attitude, and the way I treat others.

I was born in the “sexist 50s”. That does not make me sexist. Treating women badly would do it, or if I actually believed any of that sexist crap, that would do it. Also, the bible’s language tells me to include women when I say ‘man’ or ‘men’ or ‘mankind’, as well as every race. As I choose to believe the more objective truth, I don’t feel that I’m sexist. I’m cynical, because so many women seem to feel that’s impossible, but still, not sexist.

Likewise, I am not racist because I am white. I can’t look back at my ancestry and find racial atrocities to feel ashamed and guilty for. I can’t read the news without being incensed by racial issues. I can’t justify the oppression of anyone in this country. I did not choose to be American, but I can choose the way I interpret the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Maybe Washington and Jefferson had slaves, but Lincoln changed that, and I can see this as proof to me that “all men are created equal”.

I choose to view racism and the concept of racial superiority or inferiority as immature, childish jealousies and fears, not deserving of serious consideration. I can’t make people believe that. All I can do is act on my beliefs and try not to step on any toes.

That’s not easy, since I am probably the single worst demographic type in the U.S. today. Single, white, male, no kids, over 40, middle class suburban childhood. There are few that will try to believe that I am not racist, sexist, capitalist, bigoted or whatever they’re mad at or want to blame for their ills. Well, I didn’t cause those problems, and I can’t help if I’m being punished for them.

As for politics, I inherited my dad’s. I think that’s fairly common for baby boomers and their folks alike. Politics, like religion, are often rooted in family tradition and social level. In general, the rich have usually been conservative and the poor (most predictably) demanding change (liberals). Nowadays, people have more opportunity to be informed than ever, and yet many still cling to political heritages. Choosing a political position can be tough, but it is still a choice, not an inheritance. Sooner or later, everyone must learn to evaluate their choice of political sides objectively, if only to confirm their opinions. I found, in time, that I did share most of my parent’s beliefs and opinions. Over the years, they came to agree with many of my differing thoughts. I learned that they were really more middle of the road than outright Democrat. And the same went for most of our neighbors, Republicans alike. It seemed to me, early on, that both parties were so extreme, the average person had to choose whichever would help them, personally.

Traditionally Democrats have represented workers, and Republicans, the employers. It is very difficult for the voter to break the custom and vote the other party. Both parties are presented in an “only one will do” manner. I think most people would rather have all the information on an issue before they vote on it. We don’t expect that at all. We are used to the polarization of the ‘two party’ system. We expect to hear only the extreme aspects of the story from both sides. Sadly, we vote on many issues based on what will hurt us the least, not what will solve the problem best. Through all of this there remains a cynical sense of futility, the feeling that the average citizen can’t make political choices, that their vote is meaningless.

Well, my friends, wake up!!! Politics and government, behavior and integrity – all are choices that we make and unless we demand real facts and full participation in the process, we punt our rights to anyone who sees a way to profit from them.

You can choose, too. We can all choose.

 

©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

<<–prev   top    next–>>

Return to the beginning of the book

---

The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

§ 1    So You Call It ….Freedom? Did It Come With A Manual?

Everybody in America knows the word.

Everybody in America knows for sure that they deserve it.

They know they must protect it. They must fight for it.
They even know that they must defend everybody’s right to have it.

A great many of them just don’t know what the heck it REALLY is.

I, mean, what is freedom, really?

Without flying into existentialism, dogma, or spiritualism, I’m just going to go out on a limb here and say that it all starts with our understanding of the word ‘free’.

Regardless of what a dictionary might say (I won’t bother to quote one, so look it up yourself!!), there are three colloquial uses or understandings of the same word here.

What “free” means depends on what’s going on with someone at the time. If you are oriented towards money or possessions, “free” means something for nothing. If you’re feeling oppressed, “free” means the lack of restrictions or barriers. If you are the type of person that cherishes creativity and accomplishment or ambition, “free” likely means an open field of opportunity.

I’m going to shake that tiny branch I’m hanging from and say that the monetary use of the word is one of our many English conundrums. I have no desire to count how many words we use to mean several things. So let’s forget about this version of the word. Likewise, the idea that one requires freedom to create implies that there is some restriction present already, meaning the artist feels creatively oppressed. So really, I believe, only the oppressive definition of the word “free” actually applies.

That, I fear, is where all the arguments start. (And the wars!)

Freedom, as a concept, is not quite as simple and one-sided as people would like to think. The idea that freedom is it’s own separate thing to covet and win has caused more death and destruction than anything our technology or pollution could ever do. The very idea that freedom is a philosophical opinion, to be applied as we see fit, is, by itself, so bogus it has to be the most embarrassing axiom in all of creation.

The TRUTH about “freedom” (the state of being free), is that it is not a belief – IT IS A LAW OF PHYSICS. It is, in fact, no more variable than the Laws of Gravity and Action/Reaction. Something must give in every case, or disaster will occur.

Consider this, if you will:

Let’s say I walked up to you, out of nowhere, a total stranger, and hit you over the head with a baseball bat.

Now, I think we both agree that’s a rotten thing to do, but why?

You, see, if I walk up with the idea that I’m free to swing my bat anywhere I darn well please, this impacts greatly on your right to live a baseball-bat impairment-free life. This also means that you would have the similar right to drop a grand piano on my head. These expressions of freedom all dance around the same issue – what rights we believe we have.

Logic alone dictates that one cannot be free from injury, and yet, free to do harm. If you feel you have the right to kill, then you surrender the right to live. You are only free to live as long as all agree they have no right to kill. To harm someone intentionally is to deny the other side of the “freedom” coin:

Responsibility.

Without responsibility, freedom does not work at all. To be truly free from being hurt, everyone must believe that they have no right to injure. The two ideas are as simple and permanently connected as they could possibly be.

You cannot separate freedom from responsibility. If you do so for the sake of an endeavor, you have left no choice for those whose freedom you have abridged. They must conclude that, if they are not free from your abuse, they must be free to abuse you in return. If they cannot have safety from you, you cannot have safety from them. This is the most basic level of human survivalism. This is also, historically, humanity’s biggest stumbling block.

This is the Paradox of “Freedom”.

Knowledge, ethics, and self-discipline are the tools that enable the Paradox to work.
To wit:

• To study and learn to understand the past of your art or skill will give you more freedom to create and improve, having the vocabulary to use and create with, in addition to your own imagination and perspective.
• To refrain from embellishing a business deal unfairly will inevitably protect you from an angry client suing you over a lie.
• To curtail a voluntary freedom, such as turning your cell-phone off in a theater, will guarantee that you will not be ushered out for disturbing the audience during the show.

So if you’re concerned about a particular “freedom”, ask yourself if you’d like that done to you. If you wouldn’t, then give it a miss. Then you will unravel the paradox of freedom and be given the greatest power that humanity has to wield honorably in the name of justice.

Respect.

 
©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

<<–prev   top    next–>>

Return to the beginning of the book

---

The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

ii.:   Forward

I should note, for the record, that I am an average person, with dreams and aspirations as lofty as any, and immediate needs as meager as all. I can identify with all humans on one level – the right to exist, free of abuse, containment, and undue seizures or bias. These are the foundations, (albeit re-phrased) of the basic rights set forth in all the documents drafted by America’s founders. The wording of these documents is, in most cases, general enough as to be applied in greater scope as people become more enlightened. Some issues, such as slavery, were initially allowed in, and had to be amended when the nation, as a whole figured out what was wrong. (Too bad it took several generations and a civil war to just fix the paper on that one!) Similarly, including women’s participation in the voting process was a detail not stated expressly in the Constitution, but one which the language does not in any way deny. The absolute sexism of the day had to be overcome.

Even now, we have yet to see, as a nation, the true, boundless aspect of those words penned on hemp, and finally parchment, over 200 years ago. Merely substitute “human beings”, for “man”, and the words, as if magically, apply to everyone. There’s no need to state any further definition or interpretation. Perceiving the main body of works from this point of view instantly points out the contradictions that may occur, such as the issue of slavery, (which should never have been there) and omissions in common practice, such as women’s right to vote, (which should never have been in question, and should not have required a constitutional amendment). These antiquated notions are but clinging vestiges of the politics of the past, of dollars invested. It was men with power, putting off “just this little bit” of humanity so as to protect their investments. (Nuclear weapons ring any bells,here?) They are, more importantly, proof that our government has always been vulnerable to special interests, fear of invasion, and unscrupulous behavior on the part of it’s members. All of this has occurred here, in spite of the fact that ours is the first nation on earth founded on the premise that the citizens are in control of the whole process.

This is not like 600 years ago, when a Lord or landowner could butter up the king, or all the dukes on the way up if he had to, and end up “owning” your land, now suddenly demanding taxes or your life. We were set up specifically to avoid that problem. Today, the problem exists as much as ever, with political and corporate groups constantly dogging the government for favors at every level, throwing barrels of money at every congressman they can, hoping one of them will bite, and using their influence to write, change or “get around” a law that affects their business. There is one very important difference.

This time we have let this happen.

Henry David Thoreau’s “Essay on Civil Disobedience” was, at the time, a call to honor for all Americans. It dealt mainly with the issues of slavery and taxes. He was really big on the whole tax thing. It took up a major part of the essay. The only other big problem he mentions at any length is slavery. He was vehemently against it as a concept, and he saw inclusion of it in the Constitution as an absolute outrage,in every way. When it came to taxes, though, Thoreau had mixed feelings. He pretty much objected to owing taxes to the state just because you are alive and you live here. He persistently avoided and outright refused to pay most taxes on many occasions (and if not for generous friends, would have spent more than one night in jail for it), but curiously, he had no problem paying the highway tax. The logic binding is the idea that a government should only tax for what they need to do for the citizens, as decided by the citizens themselves. He saw no problem with supporting education, but he preferred to help in that area with his expertise rather than his pocketbook. In any case, freedom from unfair taxation was one of the basic reasons for the inception of this country, and Thoreau was proper to point out the inequities of the government in that area. His work still stands today, merely inserting “racism” or “bias” for “slavery”, “U.S.A.” for “Massachusetts” and the politician of your choice for “Daniel Webster”. You can leave the rest pretty much intact, and you will be amazed to discover how relevant it still is in today’s society. There is a catch, though.

Thoreau wrote at a time when the nation was new and still getting its legs. The spirit of the revolution was still alive, as evidenced by the war with Mexico (which Thoreau was completely against). The danger of the new government falling into old feudal ways had a foreboding nearness to it. This is what caused Thoreau to write his call to civil defiance. His views mirror the protesters’ cries against the Vietnam war, the anguish of the Civil Rights Movement, and – unheard in most of society (ignored today as well) – the tax burden on the low income citizen. His plea for integrity and law-breaking was meant in only that way. Fight the bad laws by breaking them. This idea, sadly, has taken on a vastly different meaning.

Americans nowadays are cynically resigned to the concept that they cannot win, politically, in any way, and must live with whatever the “fat cats” in the government want to do to them. Since they think the fight is unwinnable, they take out their frustration on each other, exercising their right to “Civil Disobedience” in such patriotic ways as parking in handicapped spaces, weaving in and out of traffic at will, writing checks in the cash only line, and calling 911 for directions.

What follows is a series of essays on modern times. I hope you agree.

If not, at least you’re thinking, for Pete’s sake!!!

 
©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

<<–prev   top    next–>>

Return to the beginning of the book

---

The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

i.:   The Story of ‘b’

‘Cousin B’ (which is long for ‘B’) was born on St. Swithins Day in 1957 to loving mom, ‘M’, and dad, ‘R’. A normal kid growing up on Detroit’s East side, ‘B’ attended elementary school at “Our Lady of the Holy Paddle” and went on to graduate from the prestigious “East-by-Northeast Catholic” High in ‘75 (where he had been awarded a Curling Scholarship).

Later, he went on to midnight studies at Harvard and Yale, ostensibly by breaking into classrooms, libraries and professor’s offices. (Although he holds no degree from these fine schools, the photos and copied record books have proven quite profitable.)

Then, one momentous weekend in 1977, a bizarre turn of events unfolded.

Cousin ‘B’, already on the fourth day of a macrobiotic diet, had waited a long time for tickets to this matinee Red Wings hockey game, and he wasn’t about to miss it.

So it’s midway through the first period when the guy behind him decides to light up a smoke. As the man innocently reaches for his beer, his cigarette brushes Cousin ‘B’s hair, startling him to his feet.

Just as Nick Libett’s slap shot from the point was being deflected.

Did you know that if a puck hits you just right, you won’t need stitches?

Well, they gave him a free beer and a program, and Eddie Giacomin gave him an autograph. The team doctor said he would be OK, and just take him home to rest, which his friends eventually did.

After the “Kiss/Mahogany Rush” concert in Toledo. (On reflection, many later say, the day-old Orange Julius and Lime vodka was, maybe not a good idea after all.) The zombified Cousin ‘B’ appeared to come back to life momentarily, but a broken guitar thrown from the stage soon put a stop to all that.

They gave him a free beer and a program and the box office manager gave him her phone number. The Tour Manager said he would be OK if his friends just took him home to get some rest, which they eventually did.

When the after-hours Hamtramck coffee house open-mic was over.

In later years, friends who were there have claimed that he caught a falling pitcher of beer in mid-air while sound asleep, without spilling a drop, and then, waking briefly, he took the stage. After reciting two original poems, he proceeded to play Mozart’s Magic Flute Variations on a borrowed guitar, oblivious of the fact that he neither played guitar or had ever heard the song.

Afterwards, as he lay sleeping peacefully in the back seat, they finished breakfast and took him home. He went immediately to bed.

For three days.

When he awoke, like an epiphany, Cousin ‘B’ knew his true calling.

He would play lead guitar for the Detroit Red Wings.

Or he would be the #1 goalie for Motown.

The details were still a bit sketchy, but he was on to something.

Actually, the team, and the NHL, for that matter, were very kind about the whole thing and even recommended some competent psychiatrists.

Sadly, even greater disappointment lay in store at Hitsville, USA.

After settling out of court and paying for the skate marks in the studio floor, Cousin ‘B’ embarked on a nationwide search for enlightenment, playing guitar in various ice rinks and being arrested at various music stores.

Finally, after years of searching, Cousin ‘B’ found himself at the most difficult point in his journey, and he ended up where all those lost souls go when they can’t decide whether to hold a guitar or a hockey stick.

Kalamazoo.

There, by the Ball Family Marker in the old Cemetery, bathed in the same moonlight as Orville Gibson’s original guitar factory, Cousin ‘B’ became entranced, and soon visited by two spirits.

No less than the allstar goalie, Terry Sawchuk, and the French master of jazz guitar, Django Rheinhardt, sat before him. As he stood, dumbfounded, Django rose to his feet and walked across, gently rounding the graves between them. As he reached a few yards distance, he began to raise his hand.

“You idiot!”, the gypsy guitarist sputtered in his thick French accent. “Sacre bleu, any one knows you don’t play guitar for a hockey team! What are you, stupid or something?”

Cousin ‘B’ just stared blankly.

“Just a second there, pal.” Terry follows the path over to them.

“I think I know what’s wrong.”

Suddenly the ex-Red Wing goaltender produced a glowing goalie stick from thin air and gave Cousin ‘B’ a good whack to the noggin.

“There. He was just one head shot short!”

Metaphysically, that is. In reality, the pure shock of it startled Cousin ‘B’ so much that he simply fell back and lightly conked his head on the unmistakable gravestone of the inventor of the ball bearing. After a short woozy spell, his head cleared and he stood before the two greats he admired.

“I knew you just needed one more good whack to set you right”, Terry added. “You’ll be OK.”

“I’m so embarrassed”, ‘B’ muttered back. “I’ve been a stark raving lunatic for three years.”

Terry drops the stick. “You’ll be fine. You just got a little mixed up. Shake it off. You can’t be afraid to laugh at yourself.”

“And remember, treat everyone like family, like a cousin”, Django adds as they begin to float away. “We’re all cousins. You’re just like everybody else. We’re all the same. We all need to learn, to think, to laugh and cry.”

So they faded back into eternity, and the ticket for sleeping in the cemetery was only $50.

And to this day, Cousin ‘B’ remains at large, wandering in pursuit of those lofty ideals. You may see him in your town, playing goalie for some pick-up game that’s short a netminder at the last minute, or singing “Twisted” at a jam session in some little honky-tonk. Or maybe, in the wee hours, you’ll see his blanket-clad form escorted from a local cemetery.

To this day, he works tirelessly to defend the middle ground. Occasionally, he shares his music and insights with the public. As long as you learn, think, laugh or cry, the first joke’s on him.

 
©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

top    next–>>

---