The Unintended Benefits of the Super Bowl.

c. David Grim (taken 4/5/08)

Today on the way to work I heard a bit on NPR news about the donation of "mislabelled" Super Bowl gear to refugees in impoverished areas throughout the world. Apparently this is a tradition that the NFL has carried out for the last fifteen years. Obviously this year a bunch of starving kids are about to join Steeler Nation by sporting the colors featured on their Steeler Super Bowl XLV Championship tees. Y'now- "Seven is Heaven!" and all that sort of thing. That's certainly one way to ensure that the scope of Pittsburgh fandom is ever-expanding.

On one hand this is simply the right thing to do with a lot of specially-printed apparel that very few in the states would even consider purchasing at any price. After all, who wants to wear the proof of a revisionist interpretation of history? It would be like sporting the image of the World Trade Center with the caption "Made in America AND Still Standing!" But there are poor folks throughout the world that would rather advertise misinformation than be running around naked.

Still there is something unsettling about this entire scenario. Why must companies manufacture items in great quantities that have a 50% probability of being rendered "worthless" almost immediately after being produced? Do football fans really require the material manifestation of an event as soon as it has occurred? Whose enjoyment really needs to be validated by a damned t-shirt? And why can't Americans wait a day or two to get their wearable record of vicarious achievement? These are questions that might shed light on the true spirit and character of this nation.

I'm glad that children in places as diverse as Zambia, Armenia, Nicaragua, and Romania will get some brand new clothing to wear. But it's a bit of a shame that they are forced to advertise something that never happened, due to the excessive waste the US perpetuates without even being conscious of it. There's something a bit pathetic in all of this business.

Will WikiLeaks Change Everything?

c. David Grim (taken 11/21/10)

I've been a bit dissociated from the national media (especially over the Thanksgiving Holiday), so it's quite possible that everyone else knows a lot more about WikiLeaks than me. But the snippets of analysis I've caught on NPR have been fascinating so far. Evidently this online entity was launched in 2006, so it's strange that it hasn't really been in my consciousness until now. After all, I was paying attention up until the 2008 presidential election. if WikiLeaks had played a major role in public affairs back then, I think I would have heard about it.

Anyway, it does make sense that the public understanding of this odd organization is nebulous. The site itself expresses its purpose as "Exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East", and adds the following: "but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations." Surely in a post 9-11 environment, this can cause chagrin to administrations throughout the world who are involved in delicate maneuverings concerning the internal and external security of various nations. It's no surprise that those involved with making Wikileaks work want to keep a low profile.

Surely this applies to Julian Assange, the Australian most often cited as the founder of WikiLeaks. After all, Interpol has added Assange to its "Most Wanted" list. However, its allegations against the putative face of Wikileaks are not specifically related to any whistle blowing. Instead Assange is being sought for questioning regarding the alleged rape and molestation of two separate women (he denies any involvement). Others associated with the site complain of "continuing harassment and surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence organizations, including extended detention, seizure of computers, veiled threats, “covert following and hidden photography". Meanwhile authorities across the globe (including those in the US) are trying to figure out how to prosecute Assange for espionage and related charges.

What has WikiLeaks actually done? Well... they started out by posting the reputed hit list of a Mideastern Sheikh, exposed atrocities and corruption in Kenya, shared secrets of Scientology, posted Sarah Palin's e-mail, published an Afghan War Diary, revealed Iraq War logs, and (most recently) released a huge amount of United States diplomatic cables which could prove both embarrassing and inconvenient for the State Department. The reaction has been vehement condemnation, including a suggestion by US Congressman Peter King (chairman of the Homeland Security Committee) that WikiLeaks should be listed as a foreign terrorist organization.

Even for the most ardent supporters of free speech, WikiLeaks can be problematic. There is no way the validity of the information it publishes can be verified, and the editorial process of the organization is not transparent. Additionally, many governments claim that the lives of their operatives and military personnel can be put at risk by WikiLeaks activity. In fact there is some reason to believe that major world events with incalculable consequences could be provoked by reactions to the released information. For the near future Assange has promised the leaking of material regarding the private sector, which he insinuates could shake the international economic system. For this reason, I'll probably be paying more attention.

Just Folks.

c. David Grim (taken 10/10/10)

On the way to work I heard some folks talking about the election. The interviewer was asking them how they felt about the current direction of government. One guy commented that he thought that Washington was out-of-step with the mainstream. That made me consider the definition of the word. What is the actual "mainstream" of the United States of America? It's like trying to define the word "normal". Haven't we all already agreed that it is impossible? Sure, there exists some statistical aggregate of the "average". But for every such formulation you have to substantially limit your variables to attain any clear impression.

You might be "normal" when it comes to the house you reside in, or the number of children you have, or the amount of fat you eat every day... but I guarantee you I could find just as many abnormalities that apply to you as well. So how can anyone presume to really represent the "mainstream", or have any idea what "it" believes? A more appropriate question to ask is just how broad a sampling of the population any one individual can relate to. Because whoever has the ability to expand his/her empathy to the widest spectrum has the best ability to ascertain what the "mainstream" is.

I've been thinking a lot about this in different ways over the years. I live in an urban area- which means I'm surrounded by a density of people with a large and diverse cross-section of social classes, attitudes, interests, and lifestyles. And to add to that, I work in the exurbs where I encounter an entirely different group of people with an entirely disparate set of perspectives. I spend an almost equal amount of my waking hours in these two settings. Additionally, on my way to work I alternate listening to conservative talk radio and NPR. I could therefore make the case that I am exposed to multiple sections of the population regularly, and thus have some ability to compare and contrast.

Still I can't tell you what the "mainstream" is, and I expect that you can't either. And I'm damn sure that the person who claims to represent that fictional construct is talking out of his ass in the service of persuasion. But I'm not certain whether or not he knows that he is making this crap up. The assertion that he is truly representative of "the middle" is delivered in such a sanctimonious way that I suspect he hasn't really given too much consideration to the accuracy of his claims. No... instead he has the unthinking audacity to speak for "America" when he is merely parroting a set of ideas and opinions that have been force fed him by whatever media outlet he follows.

Perhaps I'm overreacting to what amounts to a very common subconscious process. Still I've had about as much as I can stand from these jerk-offs who insist that they embody the "just-folks-iness" that everyone who disagrees with them so clearly lacks. If we haven't learned the very real dangers of this kind of populist crap by now (especially in the wake of the violence of the 20th century), then we will never see our situation clearly enough to aspire to any serviceable consensus. We might as well draw the new borders right now. What's the point of continuing the false pretense of a "United" States when so many are so clearly addicted to the us vs. them mentality?

The Importance of Civility for Pessimists.

c. David Grim (taken 9/25/10)

Listening to NPR on the way to work the other day, I heard an interview with author David Rakoff. I believe I read one of his books within the last year or two, but I can't be counted on to remember which one it was or what it was about. That likely means that I neither loved nor hated it and I was therefore only mildly curious about what he might say on the radio. But it turns out that his perspective gave me something to think about. Because Rakoff contends that his "realistic" approach to life, while not making him "happy", can be considered beautiful.

Apparently the author has a new memoir out called "Half Full". The sense I get is that it makes the case for rejecting an optimistic viewpoint. It's standard issue to read unabashed accounts of how a budding philosopher has found a way to inject the brightness into an otherwise bleak existence. Readers may have a difficult time embracing the light, and critics may rally against the cheesy aesthetic that often accompanies such screeds, but it's rare anymore to hear an active reproach of positivity and its possible benefits for those that embrace it.

What makes Rakoff's take palatable is his civility. Obviously the man has a litany of worthwhile complaints. In his own words, he was born quite "diminutive". He's also gay. These qualities together made him the butt of many an adolescent joke. And he has also suffered recurring bouts of cancer- events that have been enough to (understandably) sour the lives of many throughout history. Yet somehow Rakoff comes off less as a whiny malcontent than can reasonably be expected. And he does it all without embracing religion. That's truly remarkable nowadays.

There's definitely something to be said for being fully engaged in the process of living, no matter what the universe provides you. Rakoff seems equally unimpressed by the benefits he has received throughout his life as he is unperturbed by the things that would serve to plow under most of us. Yet the thing I am most impressed by is that he seems to hold his beliefs without being an overt misanthrope. He actually sounds like a nice guy. I actually think that Rakoff would be an entertaining dinner guest. Sure he might focus on the negative... but maybe he'd manage to make it seem not half bad.

Perspective.

c. David Grim (taken 4/6/08)

Recently I had a short online discussion about the diversity of perspectives on NPR. Someone had implied that there is a certain homogeneity of political attitudes on public radio and that whatever this consists of can be used as a characterization for an editorial approach to an anthology of essays. It was meant as a convenient way to implicate both the book itself and anyone who enjoyed it. But to me, it resonated as a particularly myopic approach to criticism. It was an implication of everything that didn't fit this commentator's definition of "Real America".

Obviously this person has discounted NPR without having fully exposed himself to its programming. A quick illustration of this is the choice of guests on Terry Gross' Fresh Air to kick off this week. Yesterday she interviewed a professional dominatrix named Melissa Febos who put herself through college working in a Manhattan dungeon. Perhaps in isolation, this selection would seem to reinforce the contention that NPR is obsessed with a perverse urbanity capable of alienating Middle America. Certainly there are many prudish citizens that would find cause to bemoan the use of taxpayer dollars to promote such activity, and they might even have a point if the federal government had not gutted its funding for NPR during the Bush Administration.

But as if to directly contradict such notions, today's guest was David Walker, a former government comptroller, and adviser to Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, and current CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Walker spoke about the growing crisis of debt the federal government faces, and the dangers it presents to the future of the United States.

You know, it's easy to find fault with a media phenomenon that covers such a wide range of material, ideas and orientations. It's easy to cherry pick and cite the few things that you find particularly objectionable. It's a lot more difficult to be open to the totality of the presentation.