...but I'd sacrifice my body if it meant I'd get the Jack part out...
For the extended metaphor, please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3barCgWQpxA
And no, I'm not talking about my daddy issues. Or my hemaphrotidism. Or the actual Jack for that matter...
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Monday, 10 May 2010
Off limits
Politics
Philisophy
Classics
Doctor Who
Star Trek
Films
Civil Rights
The Future
Friends
Music
Philisophy
Classics
Doctor Who
Star Trek
Films
Civil Rights
The Future
Friends
Music
Ce bel amor qui ne peut mourir...
I miss you so much. It hurts. Like hell. Every single day. I know you're busy, and out of sight is out of mind, and neither of us have had time or money and your life requires the whole of you. And that's fine, but I still miss you. I still love you. I still want to be with you even though I can't. I miss the feel of you. I miss your smile. I miss the way how you melt into me when I hol you. I miss the wonder and amazement in your eyes, at every little thing in the world. I miss the way nothing is the same around you. I miss the need to try and kill you, because if I don't you'll actually kill me. I miss being the strong one for a change. I hate the fact you're so close and yet so far. I hate you live in the middle of nowhere. I hate that I have virtually no way of contacting you, ever. I'm scared that you hate me. I'm scared you don't actually like me that much anymore. I'm scared I'll never be included in your life. I'm scared you'll be gone before I get to see you one more time. I wonder why it takes us so long to admit we love each other every time we meet. I wonder why we eventually do admit it each time. I wonder when I'll next see, of if I'll even have that option.. I love you. I miss you. I need you. I want you. Please be mine.
Ce bel amor qui ne peut mourir...
I miss you so much. It hurts. Like hell. Every single day. I know you're hurting right now, and me, and us, and all that is probably exactly what you don't need to deal with at this moment. And that's fine, but I still miss you. I still love you. I still want to be with you even though I can't. I miss the feel of you. I miss your smile. I miss the way you'd hold me. I miss the way you look at me, like I'm the one in a higher league. I miss your cocky, arrogant bullshit. I miss fighting with you. I miss you beating me. I hate the fact you're 4500 miles away. I hate the fact I can't just jump on a bus, or a train and come and see you. I hate the fact that will never change. I hate that loving you is just something that will always be in our heads. I hate that too see you even once more, the entire universe would have to shift for me. I'm scared that you'll fall out of love with me. I'm scared you'll forget about me. I'm scared I'll always have to sit on the sidelines and watch. I wonder why you love me. I wonder why you told me you loved me. I wonder when, if ever, I'll next get a chance to see you again. I love you. I miss you. I need you. I want you. Please be mine.
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Apathy Killed Activism
The title is a reference to Emo Killed Depression, a song by a punk band, and also the title of a blog post from a very long time ago, by Mitch Clem; one of the most talented webcomic writers I've ever come across (indeed the first I ever did), and tragically, a chronic depressive. I do however, highly recommend his work, especially Nothing Nice 2 Say, though like so many webcomics, it does require a high level of geekery about certain concepts, in this case the punk scene, and a rather dark sense of humour.
Secondly, I meant to post this a few days ago, but then life caught up with me, and so it's a bit irrelevant now what with the election having passed, though of course it could become relevant again sometime in the near future depending on how stable whatever-turns-up-next week ends up being.
Apathy Killed Activism
I hate politics. By which I mean the day to day of politics, the loss of idealism that comes with 20 years+ working in it, where financiers and unwritten deals and the complexity of achieving anything of any real merit have driven politicans to a disinterested state of resignation. This is much to the frustration of the boyfriend and his family, who spend most of their time together talking about how x politician said y when they voted z on such and such a bill an indeterminate (actually, knowing his family, a very precisely known date) number of years ago; meanwhile I sit bored in the corner playing on my phone for 6 hours.
I am however, a stauch activist. And look on those who aren't with a varying amount of dismay. As Queen Jamilla paraphrases in Star Wars 2: The day we stop believing in democracy is the day we lose it. I don't necessarily go entirely for democracy, at least not in the version we have it - I am after all, a proud anarchist - electoral reform isn't the half of it in my mind, but I do strongly believe the sentiment. Ben Franklin puts it "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", better paraphrased as "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." If you have no activism of ANY kind in you, as so many do nowadays, please move to one of the many countries where you will not be required to have any, for all such freedoms are taken away from you. I have voted,; I've protested; I've attended rallies; I've defended free speech using Hitler as a 'pro' example; I've been photographed by the police for being a dissident; I've protected others from being photographed; I've been threatened with arrest; I've run from the police; I've helped people get away and helped split them up; I've encouraged friends to start 'pro war' rallies; I've protested inside the SOCPA zone; I've educated others about the SOCPA zone (see end for more details); I've given money to activist causes; I follow several activist projects and have been a participant in several; I follow activist news media and have contriubted on several occasions. The police have, for various reasons, my name; address; photograph; fingerprints; and photoevidence of me in locations what could cause me issues at some point in my life. The American authorities, for reasons of my flying, have all this, plus a DNA sample. None of this stops me from continuing my activism, and what the preceeding list contains is the result of only attending 1/20 of the things I would do if circumstances permitted.
I'm not saying everyone has to do all these things. I'm not even saying everyone has to go out and vote. But I do believe everyone should have some sense of activism, and the easiest, simplest, and quickest way to do that for most people, is to go vote once every few years. In theory, by vitrue of being an anarchist, I am fully for the ability to exercise the right not to vote. However I am also a realist. I've listened to those I know who don't vote. They say that their vote doesn't count for much; that they're all as bad as each other anyway; that they don't care about the issues; that voter turnout is crap anyway; that voter turnout is high anyway; that the seat is a sure victory for x anyway; so there's no point; that there's no 'none of the above; box. I call BULLSHIT on them. I have listened openly and respectfully to their reasons, honestly I have, but they all amount to apathy, and bone idleness of the worst kind.
If everyone who said their vote doesn't matter turned up then the impact on the polling figures would matter a hell of a lot. Yes they might all be as bad as each other, but only people with an immature, distorted view of the world think all choices should have an intrinsically 'good' option, that they're easy, that decisions don't come with some unwanted consequences for the sake of a greater gain. If you think everyone's bad, stand yourself, vote for the smaller parties that haven't had a chance to prove themselves yet, vote for the young twenty something, that's not been in poltics before, that is still the pure idealist. Mr Smith Goes To Washington, and Legally Blonde 2, as odd as that connection may seem, can be depressingly accurate when they portray the newcomers as idealists and those with experience as out of touch with the point of politics. But what if we suddenly had a Parliament, or a local council full of idealists, full of people who still believed they could change the world, that if you fight hard enough it works out? How much might we achieve?
To those who don't care about the issues, have you looked at every issue? If you're this apathetic about voting, I'm going to guarantee the answer is no. Don't pay attention to what the media says, the 2 or 3 big things, education, the nhs, immigiration, the economy, whatever the hot topic of the year is. Go and read the party manifestos. And don't use some crappy facebook polling quiz that will 'tell' you how to vote. Make your own decisions and conclusions. Read the entire manifesto, they're not that long I promise you. And don't just read the big 3. Read the small parties. Read the ones of parties that aren't standing in your constituency. Read the BNP and UKIP manifestos, because even fascism had a few good points to it. What do you agree with? What do you disagree with? Why? Can you think of a better system? Can you combine the bits of each manifesto you do like into a simple coherent set of policies. If not, does it matter? As I stated, I am a proud anarchist. In theory only. I accept anarchism does not work in this world. It requires too much of a re-evaluation of social perspectives and personal values for large scale implementation. The communes that exist today are very small scale, and even the successful socialist cultures of history were either small by today's standards (<100,000 people), or fragmented into small cells, operating on their own bases. And for the successful communes that exist today, even they have to deal with capitalist society outside of themselves. 5000 odd years has doctored capitalist and materialistic culture into the human psyche in such a pervasive manner, a global amnesia would have to occur to realistically adopt a new set of such different ocietal operators with any real worth. And so I operate within what I have to in the real world, but that doesn't mean when asked, I don't know exactly where I stand in an ideal world. If it's the other way round; if your politicians don't care about the issues important to you, whose fault is that? Everyone assumes someone else will take the lead, will complain about it publically, when really, everyone is just complaining in the comfort of their own homes and wondering why life isn't getting any better. Take charge of your own lives, and your own politics, and bring these issues to the attention of your councillors and MPs yourself, and encourage others to do the same. Whilst he's a Conservative and so I'm a little dismayed by him, Zac Goldsmith's election could be very promising, as he is such a rabid proponent of direct democracy, especially using public methods such as local protest, petition, local appeal, sit-ins. I honestly do hope that despite his breeding, we can expect to see some of the 'new' conservative that is portrayed so feverently by Cameron, that Goldsmith is indicative of what's coming into the party, in 50 years, the conservatives might actually be vaguely desirable.
If voter turnout is low, then see above. If you all stopped making excuses, it'd be high. Even where it is high, high voter turnout is usually above 60% and for the few places where it occurs the 70-75% range is exceptional. I don't think it goes above that anywhere. On an average constituency size of ~50k eligibile voters, that's still between 20,000 - 12,500 people not turning up, which is enough to change even the largest majority of those elected. And that's just from people signed up to the electoral roll, there will be others who haven't bothered to sign onto it, even though its legally required of you, that's not including the huge number of homeless who should be entitled to vote if a proven citizen. And on these kind of numbers, the argument 'its a sure seat for x' falls apart. It becomes, complete bullshit. All voting analysis is based on the fact that the same people will turn up, that near half the country, 20 million voters, won't use the right to do so. That kind of analysis gets blown out of the water entirely if those 20 million people suddenly turn up. The issues this year with polling stations running out of ballot papers, or not having enough staff and booths for the people turning up are disgraceful. Whilst I appreciate if they were overstaffed, there would be cries deploring the waste of public spending, the fact that the government itself, locally and nationally, is relying on a ~60% total turnout, and does not have the capacity and capability to cope with something larger than this is abominable, contemptible, and a variety of other highly negative adjectives.
Finally, there being no 'none of the above' box, DRAW ONE. A ballot paper cannot be admitted to the count if it has any unofficial marks on it, such as a box saying none of the above with an x in it drawn on by the voter, or if it could personally identify the voter, so write a name on the paper. any name. just a name. Your vote then doesn't go towards any candidate, so you don't even have to choose, or look at party manifestos, or anything like that, however it does count for voter turnout, you have used your vote, and arguably, have used your right not to vote much more effectively that being too lazy to simply to turn up.
On the basis of all this, I am this in practical terms, a firm believer in compulsory voting. I'm all for not having a link between who voted and who they voted for, but I think everyone should vote, and until I manage to find a genuine contientious objector with a reasonable, logical, thought out reason for not turning up to vote, until the political Lot is brought before me, I propose and support mandatory voting. It's a very simple thing to take everyone from the register who didn't vote, and lump them with a £250 fine. £500 if it's not paid in 14 days. Over 20 million voters, that's an extra £5-10billion into the economy, which will save the rest of us who cared enough, and even those of you who didn't, a few public service cuts along the way. A thread on a forum I belong to asks "Given the choice, would you rather use your vote of have £750?" Refer back to the quotes near the start of this post. If you'd sacrifice the use of your vote for £750 you can damn well be CHARGED £250 for such a privilege.
Because if I could, I wouldn't only disenfranchise every eligible non voting perosn in the country, and give their votes to the 8 year olds with more maturity and respect than them, I'd disenfranchise them of every right, civil liberty, advantage given to them since the establishment of parliament (alternatiely, 1215, 1264, or 1341 depending on where you wish to take it from). Because if you can't be bothered to take the 10 minute trip to vote, you don't deserve any of it. You have no appreciation or respect for the benefits you enjoy every day by virtue of having a voice in the governance of the country. Anyone living in rented accomodation can automatically be stripped of a vote. Anyone who has ever been to a GP, needed medical treatment, had a jab at school, or even been born in a hospital, can be handed a large bill for the costs. Anyone with an education, can be billed for it. Most of us wouldn't even have an education to be billed for anyway, you wouldn't necessarily even have the ability to read this rant. Anyone living an open and proud gay life can go back into the shadows, hated and criminalized. Anyone who has ever been the victim of a crime simply has to suffer, because without an act of parliament it's not a crime. Every woman who enjoys the freedom that Pankhurst brought them because she bothered to be an activist. You don't fucking deserve any of it, because your attitude is "I don't care, it doesn't count anyway." BULLSHIT on you. You have no respect or appreciation of those who have fought before you, for the freedoms your friends and family enjoy, or even for yourself. You're not fit to enjoy them, and lacking the ability to send you 700 years back in time, please kindly remove yourselves to one of the many countries still in the world where you aren't required to consider these issues, because that choice simply isn't given to you.
I might not be happy that too many of my friends voted conservative, but I have respect for them. On Thursday, I had no respect for those who didn't turn up to vote. I didn't want to know them. On that day they were not my friends. I'm not asking much, I'm not expecting everyone to go on marches with me every year, I'm asking for a tiny bit activism. That at the very least, every 4 years, you give up 10 minutes of your time to draw on a piece of paper. Are you really telling me after all the things I've highlighted in the last paragraph its not worth your time and energy to even do that?!
Fight for what you believe in. Be an activist. Use your vote. Attend a march. Write a strongly worded letter to a local politican. Sign it off as Mrs Trellis from North Wales for all I care. But fight for your freedoms and never stop. Fight because its the right thing to do. Fight because it honours those who have fought on your behalf before you. Fight because it gives you solidarity with those who still fight on your behalf. Fight for the lost causes because they're only truly lost when the last fighter gives up. Fight and be proud of it. Fight and encourage others to do so. Fight to make the world a better place. Fight because I ask you to. Fight because you want to.
Fight.
Mood - I made myself rather angry when I said 'fucking' above.
Music - Far too long to include, and nothing of any consequence. It took me 4 hours to write this and the last post.
SOCPA - For those not in the know, SOCPA is legislation passed under the wave of public terror and reactionary sentiment following terrorist attacks. Importantly, it designates a zone, of 1km radius, from Westminster Palace, where it is illegal to protest, even as a single individual, without 6 days notice from the police, who can refuse the permission to do so, and impose restrictions upon the size, time, place, duration, noise level, or style of the protest freely, and contiune to be free to add or vary any restriction they choose to do so for the duration of the protest, and outlaws the use of loudspeakers for any purpose at any time within the area, except for the emergency services.
Its an underappreciated restriction in the UK, as it was passed very quietly, tacked onto legislation it doesn't relate to. If you don't understand the ramifications for this legislation on the concept of free speech, please go take a course in Civil Liberties. There is nothing, save the opposition of MPs and public opinion to stop the expansion of this zone. And that opposition wasn't enough to stop the establishment of it to start of with. In fact I imagine half of you were completely unfamiliar with the zone until now, which shows you just how ignored that voice has been. This legislation is not required to stop mobbing of MPs, that would come under assault law anyway. This legislation stops free speech, without official consent, which isn't free at all, pure and simple. And it stops it at the seat of government, at the seat of those who should protect us, who are elected to defend the principles of the right to free speech. And they have taken it away from us, and made it so that our protests are held where they don't have to hear us if they don't want to. Please educate everyone you know about it, and campaign for its removal.
See SOCPA zone text and designated area.
Secondly, I meant to post this a few days ago, but then life caught up with me, and so it's a bit irrelevant now what with the election having passed, though of course it could become relevant again sometime in the near future depending on how stable whatever-turns-up-next week ends up being.
Apathy Killed Activism
I hate politics. By which I mean the day to day of politics, the loss of idealism that comes with 20 years+ working in it, where financiers and unwritten deals and the complexity of achieving anything of any real merit have driven politicans to a disinterested state of resignation. This is much to the frustration of the boyfriend and his family, who spend most of their time together talking about how x politician said y when they voted z on such and such a bill an indeterminate (actually, knowing his family, a very precisely known date) number of years ago; meanwhile I sit bored in the corner playing on my phone for 6 hours.
I am however, a stauch activist. And look on those who aren't with a varying amount of dismay. As Queen Jamilla paraphrases in Star Wars 2: The day we stop believing in democracy is the day we lose it. I don't necessarily go entirely for democracy, at least not in the version we have it - I am after all, a proud anarchist - electoral reform isn't the half of it in my mind, but I do strongly believe the sentiment. Ben Franklin puts it "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", better paraphrased as "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." If you have no activism of ANY kind in you, as so many do nowadays, please move to one of the many countries where you will not be required to have any, for all such freedoms are taken away from you. I have voted,; I've protested; I've attended rallies; I've defended free speech using Hitler as a 'pro' example; I've been photographed by the police for being a dissident; I've protected others from being photographed; I've been threatened with arrest; I've run from the police; I've helped people get away and helped split them up; I've encouraged friends to start 'pro war' rallies; I've protested inside the SOCPA zone; I've educated others about the SOCPA zone (see end for more details); I've given money to activist causes; I follow several activist projects and have been a participant in several; I follow activist news media and have contriubted on several occasions. The police have, for various reasons, my name; address; photograph; fingerprints; and photoevidence of me in locations what could cause me issues at some point in my life. The American authorities, for reasons of my flying, have all this, plus a DNA sample. None of this stops me from continuing my activism, and what the preceeding list contains is the result of only attending 1/20 of the things I would do if circumstances permitted.
I'm not saying everyone has to do all these things. I'm not even saying everyone has to go out and vote. But I do believe everyone should have some sense of activism, and the easiest, simplest, and quickest way to do that for most people, is to go vote once every few years. In theory, by vitrue of being an anarchist, I am fully for the ability to exercise the right not to vote. However I am also a realist. I've listened to those I know who don't vote. They say that their vote doesn't count for much; that they're all as bad as each other anyway; that they don't care about the issues; that voter turnout is crap anyway; that voter turnout is high anyway; that the seat is a sure victory for x anyway; so there's no point; that there's no 'none of the above; box. I call BULLSHIT on them. I have listened openly and respectfully to their reasons, honestly I have, but they all amount to apathy, and bone idleness of the worst kind.
If everyone who said their vote doesn't matter turned up then the impact on the polling figures would matter a hell of a lot. Yes they might all be as bad as each other, but only people with an immature, distorted view of the world think all choices should have an intrinsically 'good' option, that they're easy, that decisions don't come with some unwanted consequences for the sake of a greater gain. If you think everyone's bad, stand yourself, vote for the smaller parties that haven't had a chance to prove themselves yet, vote for the young twenty something, that's not been in poltics before, that is still the pure idealist. Mr Smith Goes To Washington, and Legally Blonde 2, as odd as that connection may seem, can be depressingly accurate when they portray the newcomers as idealists and those with experience as out of touch with the point of politics. But what if we suddenly had a Parliament, or a local council full of idealists, full of people who still believed they could change the world, that if you fight hard enough it works out? How much might we achieve?
To those who don't care about the issues, have you looked at every issue? If you're this apathetic about voting, I'm going to guarantee the answer is no. Don't pay attention to what the media says, the 2 or 3 big things, education, the nhs, immigiration, the economy, whatever the hot topic of the year is. Go and read the party manifestos. And don't use some crappy facebook polling quiz that will 'tell' you how to vote. Make your own decisions and conclusions. Read the entire manifesto, they're not that long I promise you. And don't just read the big 3. Read the small parties. Read the ones of parties that aren't standing in your constituency. Read the BNP and UKIP manifestos, because even fascism had a few good points to it. What do you agree with? What do you disagree with? Why? Can you think of a better system? Can you combine the bits of each manifesto you do like into a simple coherent set of policies. If not, does it matter? As I stated, I am a proud anarchist. In theory only. I accept anarchism does not work in this world. It requires too much of a re-evaluation of social perspectives and personal values for large scale implementation. The communes that exist today are very small scale, and even the successful socialist cultures of history were either small by today's standards (<100,000 people), or fragmented into small cells, operating on their own bases. And for the successful communes that exist today, even they have to deal with capitalist society outside of themselves. 5000 odd years has doctored capitalist and materialistic culture into the human psyche in such a pervasive manner, a global amnesia would have to occur to realistically adopt a new set of such different ocietal operators with any real worth. And so I operate within what I have to in the real world, but that doesn't mean when asked, I don't know exactly where I stand in an ideal world. If it's the other way round; if your politicians don't care about the issues important to you, whose fault is that? Everyone assumes someone else will take the lead, will complain about it publically, when really, everyone is just complaining in the comfort of their own homes and wondering why life isn't getting any better. Take charge of your own lives, and your own politics, and bring these issues to the attention of your councillors and MPs yourself, and encourage others to do the same. Whilst he's a Conservative and so I'm a little dismayed by him, Zac Goldsmith's election could be very promising, as he is such a rabid proponent of direct democracy, especially using public methods such as local protest, petition, local appeal, sit-ins. I honestly do hope that despite his breeding, we can expect to see some of the 'new' conservative that is portrayed so feverently by Cameron, that Goldsmith is indicative of what's coming into the party, in 50 years, the conservatives might actually be vaguely desirable.
If voter turnout is low, then see above. If you all stopped making excuses, it'd be high. Even where it is high, high voter turnout is usually above 60% and for the few places where it occurs the 70-75% range is exceptional. I don't think it goes above that anywhere. On an average constituency size of ~50k eligibile voters, that's still between 20,000 - 12,500 people not turning up, which is enough to change even the largest majority of those elected. And that's just from people signed up to the electoral roll, there will be others who haven't bothered to sign onto it, even though its legally required of you, that's not including the huge number of homeless who should be entitled to vote if a proven citizen. And on these kind of numbers, the argument 'its a sure seat for x' falls apart. It becomes, complete bullshit. All voting analysis is based on the fact that the same people will turn up, that near half the country, 20 million voters, won't use the right to do so. That kind of analysis gets blown out of the water entirely if those 20 million people suddenly turn up. The issues this year with polling stations running out of ballot papers, or not having enough staff and booths for the people turning up are disgraceful. Whilst I appreciate if they were overstaffed, there would be cries deploring the waste of public spending, the fact that the government itself, locally and nationally, is relying on a ~60% total turnout, and does not have the capacity and capability to cope with something larger than this is abominable, contemptible, and a variety of other highly negative adjectives.
Finally, there being no 'none of the above' box, DRAW ONE. A ballot paper cannot be admitted to the count if it has any unofficial marks on it, such as a box saying none of the above with an x in it drawn on by the voter, or if it could personally identify the voter, so write a name on the paper. any name. just a name. Your vote then doesn't go towards any candidate, so you don't even have to choose, or look at party manifestos, or anything like that, however it does count for voter turnout, you have used your vote, and arguably, have used your right not to vote much more effectively that being too lazy to simply to turn up.
On the basis of all this, I am this in practical terms, a firm believer in compulsory voting. I'm all for not having a link between who voted and who they voted for, but I think everyone should vote, and until I manage to find a genuine contientious objector with a reasonable, logical, thought out reason for not turning up to vote, until the political Lot is brought before me, I propose and support mandatory voting. It's a very simple thing to take everyone from the register who didn't vote, and lump them with a £250 fine. £500 if it's not paid in 14 days. Over 20 million voters, that's an extra £5-10billion into the economy, which will save the rest of us who cared enough, and even those of you who didn't, a few public service cuts along the way. A thread on a forum I belong to asks "Given the choice, would you rather use your vote of have £750?" Refer back to the quotes near the start of this post. If you'd sacrifice the use of your vote for £750 you can damn well be CHARGED £250 for such a privilege.
Because if I could, I wouldn't only disenfranchise every eligible non voting perosn in the country, and give their votes to the 8 year olds with more maturity and respect than them, I'd disenfranchise them of every right, civil liberty, advantage given to them since the establishment of parliament (alternatiely, 1215, 1264, or 1341 depending on where you wish to take it from). Because if you can't be bothered to take the 10 minute trip to vote, you don't deserve any of it. You have no appreciation or respect for the benefits you enjoy every day by virtue of having a voice in the governance of the country. Anyone living in rented accomodation can automatically be stripped of a vote. Anyone who has ever been to a GP, needed medical treatment, had a jab at school, or even been born in a hospital, can be handed a large bill for the costs. Anyone with an education, can be billed for it. Most of us wouldn't even have an education to be billed for anyway, you wouldn't necessarily even have the ability to read this rant. Anyone living an open and proud gay life can go back into the shadows, hated and criminalized. Anyone who has ever been the victim of a crime simply has to suffer, because without an act of parliament it's not a crime. Every woman who enjoys the freedom that Pankhurst brought them because she bothered to be an activist. You don't fucking deserve any of it, because your attitude is "I don't care, it doesn't count anyway." BULLSHIT on you. You have no respect or appreciation of those who have fought before you, for the freedoms your friends and family enjoy, or even for yourself. You're not fit to enjoy them, and lacking the ability to send you 700 years back in time, please kindly remove yourselves to one of the many countries still in the world where you aren't required to consider these issues, because that choice simply isn't given to you.
I might not be happy that too many of my friends voted conservative, but I have respect for them. On Thursday, I had no respect for those who didn't turn up to vote. I didn't want to know them. On that day they were not my friends. I'm not asking much, I'm not expecting everyone to go on marches with me every year, I'm asking for a tiny bit activism. That at the very least, every 4 years, you give up 10 minutes of your time to draw on a piece of paper. Are you really telling me after all the things I've highlighted in the last paragraph its not worth your time and energy to even do that?!
Fight for what you believe in. Be an activist. Use your vote. Attend a march. Write a strongly worded letter to a local politican. Sign it off as Mrs Trellis from North Wales for all I care. But fight for your freedoms and never stop. Fight because its the right thing to do. Fight because it honours those who have fought on your behalf before you. Fight because it gives you solidarity with those who still fight on your behalf. Fight for the lost causes because they're only truly lost when the last fighter gives up. Fight and be proud of it. Fight and encourage others to do so. Fight to make the world a better place. Fight because I ask you to. Fight because you want to.
Fight.
Mood - I made myself rather angry when I said 'fucking' above.
Music - Far too long to include, and nothing of any consequence. It took me 4 hours to write this and the last post.
SOCPA - For those not in the know, SOCPA is legislation passed under the wave of public terror and reactionary sentiment following terrorist attacks. Importantly, it designates a zone, of 1km radius, from Westminster Palace, where it is illegal to protest, even as a single individual, without 6 days notice from the police, who can refuse the permission to do so, and impose restrictions upon the size, time, place, duration, noise level, or style of the protest freely, and contiune to be free to add or vary any restriction they choose to do so for the duration of the protest, and outlaws the use of loudspeakers for any purpose at any time within the area, except for the emergency services.
Its an underappreciated restriction in the UK, as it was passed very quietly, tacked onto legislation it doesn't relate to. If you don't understand the ramifications for this legislation on the concept of free speech, please go take a course in Civil Liberties. There is nothing, save the opposition of MPs and public opinion to stop the expansion of this zone. And that opposition wasn't enough to stop the establishment of it to start of with. In fact I imagine half of you were completely unfamiliar with the zone until now, which shows you just how ignored that voice has been. This legislation is not required to stop mobbing of MPs, that would come under assault law anyway. This legislation stops free speech, without official consent, which isn't free at all, pure and simple. And it stops it at the seat of government, at the seat of those who should protect us, who are elected to defend the principles of the right to free speech. And they have taken it away from us, and made it so that our protests are held where they don't have to hear us if they don't want to. Please educate everyone you know about it, and campaign for its removal.
See SOCPA zone text and designated area.
Que Sera Sera?
I'm going to take as read here that you've got a concept of the Rekers/Rentboy story currently developing from the US, and that you saw some of the initial media on it. I do accept though, that you may not be fully aware of some of today's commentary on it, which I'm probably going to refer to in the following post, so to make life easy, here's some background reading for you all:
Rachel Maddow on why this story matters
Dan Savage on the impact on the rentboy
CNN's interview with Lucien
Joe my god's interview with Lucien
Conversation between Rekers and Lucien
Really, in all of this, I just feel sorry for the rentboy. Now granted, I have a vested interest in the privacy and rights of sex workers, but whatever happens, his life, and more importantly, his current livelihood, is wrecked for the forseeable future. Many things can happen that would contribute to this.
Irrespective of the actions of Rekers, his motivations, of his comments on the story, Lucien will be vilified as a sex worker, a degenerate outcast section of society that nice normal people would rather pretend doesn't exist, and that when they do, it's cause they're the centre of problem stories such as this, so wouldn't the world be a much better place without them. Given that Lucien almost certainly follows legal challenges from *someone* be it the tax people, Rekers lawyers, or the media, he's going to need one of his own, and the sooner the better, and he needs a damned good one. As DS points out, it's disgraceful that a major gay liberties organisation has yet to step forward and offer the support that they throw behind say, a school girl whose prom gets cancelled cause she wants to take her girlfriend there (if you don't get what im talking about, see here), and I suspect that this is partially due to the lack of any confirmed legal action against Lucien yet, but primarily, because they don't want to be seen as giving their donated funds to anything connected with the sex industry, even at the expense of their own mandates on civil liberties.
Lucien has some of his own issues, whilst I don't believe he's anywhere near as naiive as Joe My God makes out, he has violated a confidentiality agreement, which does put him at risk, and his 'opponent', or certainly no longer his friend, is a major spokesperson for NARTH, FRC, ACPEDS, states' expert witness against gay adoption, etc. With all of the resources at his disposal that affords. Versus a rentboy paid a $75 p.d. in return for a trip to Europe and some massages.
One of the things that disgusts me about the media coverage of this, is that they have never bothered to block out his rentboy.com profile name, its bad enough that he could be recognised from the media coverage posting his face everywhere, but his rentboy.com ad was posted everywhere too. In the early interviews with him, he says he doesn't want his full name published, for a variety of very reasonable reasons. I don't use my real name when renting, I know very few that do, it's just not worth the possible downfall. However in the recent postings his real name is being published. Whilst I don't know if he agreed to this, I can't imagine why he would, especially given the media attention. Having a persona that is distanced from what you're going through is gonna be the first thing you'll want to protect.
Joe My God's post annoys me on many levels, he says a lot of good things don't get me wrong, but he seems determined that Lucien should be severely hostile to Rekers, and out to bring the man down as far as he can. Don't misunderstand me, Rekers hipocrasy is vile, but again, drawing on what I know of/in the sex industry, most in Lucien's position wouldn't be. Certainly, as Lucien now does, they would feel betrayed that Rekers made commented to the police but asked L not to, given what R has said, both in public and to Lucien, that almost certainly is the reason behind revealing the signed contract between them, but plenty others would a) not want to get too involved themselves and b) know that their work relies upon their being discreet with those with public lives, with celebrities, with older men, with married men, and that you have to judge your opinion of them on the interaction you personally have with them, not with what rumours might fly around about them, past or future. JMG keeps calling L naiive, for not knowing so many things about gay culture, but why should he? For one, the boy's only twenty, kids who went school three years later than me had a very different upbringing; most had computers, they got mobile phones at a young age, they watched different tv shows, they suffered the numeracy and literacy hours where I avoided them. If 3 years can make such a big difference, the age difference between Lucien and JMG might have a significant difference in cultural awareness. For two, different people have different cultural awarenesses. I am generally very aware of things, and especially gay culture, I rememeber the Matthew Shepard story when it happened, despite being only 11. That's a pretty aware 11 year old, let alone if I'd been 3 years younger and 8. I get the impression from JMG's conversation with Lucien, that the boy is not the kind to watch the news every day, he doesn't know who Anderson Cooper from CNN is, or of the Haggard and Jones stories, and that's okay. You don't have to know everything that's going on around you in life. Sure, if you end up in this situation, it might serve you well, and its probably the sort of thing he should be looking into, but this is where that legal advice from a decent professional should be coming foward, to tell him what's happened in previous cases, because I imagine less than a week down the line, he's still in shock, he's still hiding out a fair bit, and hasn't had the inclination to go confront his situation.
The comments on the JMG blog go back and forth, some point out, as I do, that there's no problem with not knowing this that happened before his time, especially gay culture that happened before he was even born (i.e. orange grove lady). Gay hustlers have a handle on being gay yes, they don't have to have a handle on historical gay culture, they live on current gay culture, what clubs are in, what drugs clients might take, or ask them to take, what the going rate for a boy in their area is. And I defy anyone (except possibly the Haggard/Jones participants obviously, and even then, once doesn't make you an expert,) to have a handle on being the centre of a controversial news story such as this.
Even if everything comes off relatively well for him, his renting to pay for his college fees is screwed, at least for the time being. If he's lucky he can get a book tour out of the whole ordeal to make up for that, and eventually, things will calm down yes. But for now, he's unlikely to want be meeting new clients, and they're going to wonder if he tipped off the press or not (as its still not certain how the miami new times knew when to be in the right place at the right time), and if he can be trusted with discretion.
But he won't get anywhere near the support he needs, working in the sex industry means if you suffer hardship, people will say how awful it is for ou, but very few are willing to actually do anything about it, because there's a stigma that you somehow brought media attention, rape, theft, STIs, whatever it is, on yourself. Obviously its an increased risk, and as a sex worker you accept that it MAY happen, that doesn't make it any more acceptable, and that doesn't mean they don't deserve the same graces, from everybody, be it professionals, media coverage, commentary, or your own personal thoughts, that you would give to a friend if they'd suffered a similar situation.
Rachel Maddow on why this story matters
Dan Savage on the impact on the rentboy
CNN's interview with Lucien
Joe my god's interview with Lucien
Conversation between Rekers and Lucien
Really, in all of this, I just feel sorry for the rentboy. Now granted, I have a vested interest in the privacy and rights of sex workers, but whatever happens, his life, and more importantly, his current livelihood, is wrecked for the forseeable future. Many things can happen that would contribute to this.
Irrespective of the actions of Rekers, his motivations, of his comments on the story, Lucien will be vilified as a sex worker, a degenerate outcast section of society that nice normal people would rather pretend doesn't exist, and that when they do, it's cause they're the centre of problem stories such as this, so wouldn't the world be a much better place without them. Given that Lucien almost certainly follows legal challenges from *someone* be it the tax people, Rekers lawyers, or the media, he's going to need one of his own, and the sooner the better, and he needs a damned good one. As DS points out, it's disgraceful that a major gay liberties organisation has yet to step forward and offer the support that they throw behind say, a school girl whose prom gets cancelled cause she wants to take her girlfriend there (if you don't get what im talking about, see here), and I suspect that this is partially due to the lack of any confirmed legal action against Lucien yet, but primarily, because they don't want to be seen as giving their donated funds to anything connected with the sex industry, even at the expense of their own mandates on civil liberties.
Lucien has some of his own issues, whilst I don't believe he's anywhere near as naiive as Joe My God makes out, he has violated a confidentiality agreement, which does put him at risk, and his 'opponent', or certainly no longer his friend, is a major spokesperson for NARTH, FRC, ACPEDS, states' expert witness against gay adoption, etc. With all of the resources at his disposal that affords. Versus a rentboy paid a $75 p.d. in return for a trip to Europe and some massages.
One of the things that disgusts me about the media coverage of this, is that they have never bothered to block out his rentboy.com profile name, its bad enough that he could be recognised from the media coverage posting his face everywhere, but his rentboy.com ad was posted everywhere too. In the early interviews with him, he says he doesn't want his full name published, for a variety of very reasonable reasons. I don't use my real name when renting, I know very few that do, it's just not worth the possible downfall. However in the recent postings his real name is being published. Whilst I don't know if he agreed to this, I can't imagine why he would, especially given the media attention. Having a persona that is distanced from what you're going through is gonna be the first thing you'll want to protect.
Joe My God's post annoys me on many levels, he says a lot of good things don't get me wrong, but he seems determined that Lucien should be severely hostile to Rekers, and out to bring the man down as far as he can. Don't misunderstand me, Rekers hipocrasy is vile, but again, drawing on what I know of/in the sex industry, most in Lucien's position wouldn't be. Certainly, as Lucien now does, they would feel betrayed that Rekers made commented to the police but asked L not to, given what R has said, both in public and to Lucien, that almost certainly is the reason behind revealing the signed contract between them, but plenty others would a) not want to get too involved themselves and b) know that their work relies upon their being discreet with those with public lives, with celebrities, with older men, with married men, and that you have to judge your opinion of them on the interaction you personally have with them, not with what rumours might fly around about them, past or future. JMG keeps calling L naiive, for not knowing so many things about gay culture, but why should he? For one, the boy's only twenty, kids who went school three years later than me had a very different upbringing; most had computers, they got mobile phones at a young age, they watched different tv shows, they suffered the numeracy and literacy hours where I avoided them. If 3 years can make such a big difference, the age difference between Lucien and JMG might have a significant difference in cultural awareness. For two, different people have different cultural awarenesses. I am generally very aware of things, and especially gay culture, I rememeber the Matthew Shepard story when it happened, despite being only 11. That's a pretty aware 11 year old, let alone if I'd been 3 years younger and 8. I get the impression from JMG's conversation with Lucien, that the boy is not the kind to watch the news every day, he doesn't know who Anderson Cooper from CNN is, or of the Haggard and Jones stories, and that's okay. You don't have to know everything that's going on around you in life. Sure, if you end up in this situation, it might serve you well, and its probably the sort of thing he should be looking into, but this is where that legal advice from a decent professional should be coming foward, to tell him what's happened in previous cases, because I imagine less than a week down the line, he's still in shock, he's still hiding out a fair bit, and hasn't had the inclination to go confront his situation.
The comments on the JMG blog go back and forth, some point out, as I do, that there's no problem with not knowing this that happened before his time, especially gay culture that happened before he was even born (i.e. orange grove lady). Gay hustlers have a handle on being gay yes, they don't have to have a handle on historical gay culture, they live on current gay culture, what clubs are in, what drugs clients might take, or ask them to take, what the going rate for a boy in their area is. And I defy anyone (except possibly the Haggard/Jones participants obviously, and even then, once doesn't make you an expert,) to have a handle on being the centre of a controversial news story such as this.
Even if everything comes off relatively well for him, his renting to pay for his college fees is screwed, at least for the time being. If he's lucky he can get a book tour out of the whole ordeal to make up for that, and eventually, things will calm down yes. But for now, he's unlikely to want be meeting new clients, and they're going to wonder if he tipped off the press or not (as its still not certain how the miami new times knew when to be in the right place at the right time), and if he can be trusted with discretion.
But he won't get anywhere near the support he needs, working in the sex industry means if you suffer hardship, people will say how awful it is for ou, but very few are willing to actually do anything about it, because there's a stigma that you somehow brought media attention, rape, theft, STIs, whatever it is, on yourself. Obviously its an increased risk, and as a sex worker you accept that it MAY happen, that doesn't make it any more acceptable, and that doesn't mean they don't deserve the same graces, from everybody, be it professionals, media coverage, commentary, or your own personal thoughts, that you would give to a friend if they'd suffered a similar situation.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
There is this thing that's like talking except you don't talk...
I tried to put something into words here.
I tried 5 times.
Then I gave up.
Then I gave up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)