Over the past 8 years, President Bush's verbal skills have published books, served mash-up videos, and invented a new term -- "Bushisms." Of all the comedic footage compiled from his public speaking, these 17 seconds make me burst out laughing harder than any and never seems to get old. Not because of the irony in the Sun Tzu or second-term innuendo but because you see him struggling to think and in that desperation you see a moment of innovation as Bush reinvents that age-old saying from Texas or was it Tennessee?
-- Robin Willis
The coming economic and ecological down cycle is going to be a wild ride for our generation -- hopefully one that forces us to re-examine our ideas of wealth. In this context our generation's test is to prevent the collapse of these systems and doing so requires a significant sacrifice or a change in our lifestyles in terms of our consumption and production.
From my perspective, as an architect, the dual problem of the free-falling bourgeoisie's for architecture as a luxury service coupled with the foreseeable depletion or exhaustion of material resources on the planet sounds apocalyptic for my chosen profession. In developed nations, the built environment accounts for 70% of resource consumption (by weight), 60% of non industrial waste, and 40% of total energy consumption. I have to hope that the serious constraints that architecture will see in the near future regarding economies of material, energy and demand will be understood as an opportunity for us to do better.
In Natural Capitalism, Paul Hawken plainly states that capitalism is lazy, and that the success of a product economically rarely corresponds to to its quality or integrity. It's no surprise to him that the U.S. auto industry is seeking a $34 billion bailout when the most innovative development in automobile technology in the past 10 years has been to add more cup holders.
The success of our generation will be defined by our ability to innovate and perceive economic pressures as a catalyst for doing so. In addition, what will make us great is our ability to redefine wealth as something other than monetary accumulation.
-- Robin Willis
Evangelicals have expressed a strong political agenda in recent history with involvement in Roe v. Wade, AIDS funding, and the culture wars of the 1990's. While they do hold influence in the political system and I can understand the strategy in catering to those demographics, let's be clear that culture and religion are two different things and the common attitude of cultural correctness expressed by Evangelicals and the Christian right is harmful to a healthy and diverse culture of contestation and growth. In no way should the progressives and/or the Democratic Party compromise its agendas to accommodate an organization that has made itself an enemy of culture.
"Piss Christ" is a color photograph by Andres Serrano depicting a crucifix submerged in a container of urine. After winning an award of $15,000 from the National Endowment of The Arts, it became the subject of a large controversy and served as a catalyst for the culture wars and a NEA budget cut from $180 million to $99.5 million in the early nineties. While the photograph's message is ambiguous and open to much interpretation, I personally believe there is no anti-Jesus or anti-Christian message embedded in the piece whatsoever. I will spare you an essay regarding these convictions and just say that it is quite labor intensive to get a hold of so much pristine urine in one container and that this artistsjust simply isn't that dumb to go through all of that careful work unless there was more at stake, conceptually, than creating a sacrilegious one-liner.
Evangelicals and most of the Christian right who are so dogmatic that it makes it impossible for them to comprehend anything outside of their aesthetic and intellectual norms condemned the piece as blasphemy -- end of conversation. Really? Is it because Jesus is in urine? We all release urine from our bodies everyday -- are we all sinners for doing so? Is urine unholy and unclean? (Fun fact: Urine is sterile.)
I use this hyperbole with a full understanding of American notions regarding urine as gross à la R. Kelly sex scandal. I only want to make clear how the Christian right is unable to participate in any critique, challenge or reexamination of cultural values in America. This often leads to their misunderstanding of cultural artifacts and poses a threat to the qualities that foster the development of any kind of culture and avant-garde.
-- Robin Willis
"We must patiently explain why taxing or regulating noble things (like work, saving, and entrepreneurial risk-taking) means you’ll get less of what makes America great and why subsidizing other things (like idleness and single parenthood) means you’ll get more of the destructive behaviors that ultimately will drag us down."
— An excerpt from a piece in the National Review by the vice president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.
The idea of taxing and subsidizing activity seems like a simple and effective tactic to create incentives for people to engage in what is agreed upon as positive, and, as result, discourage what is negative. But is this one-to-one relationship really true? Does subsidizing mean supporting something and taxing means discouraging it?
Sometimes the issue can be more complicated. For example, the Zurich Canton of Switzerland implemented a radical strategy of intuitively supporting heroin addictions in order to hinder larger negative side effects such as drug-related crimes and overdoses on society. Its substitution of heroin with methadone has been a wild success story leading to the decline heroin users by 4% and the decline in new users by 8%. Paradoxically, by subsidizing addiction, Zurich has effectively fought against it.
More importantly, the story of Zurich and this quote both suggest that by setting aside a moral agenda about drug addiction or welfare or single parenthood, one can find a rational solution to those problems based on their overall negative effects on a society. Arguments that surround issues such as abortion or assisted suicide for example are clouded by moral implications when, in reality, the issues should be discussed in a much more pragmatic sense, taking into consideration the implications of these acts on society as a whole.
-- Robin Willis
While the idea of a large sum of money to throw at some problem or cause of ones choosing is seductive I think that developing strategies to solve problems that deal with the constraint of not having 5 billion dollars at your disposal is more interesting. Off the top of my head I can’t conceive what kind of problems 5 billion dollars can solve or tactics for budgeting it. Nor do I know very much about investing but rather then spending the money I wonder how it can be invested or deposited in a bank, and how that capital can generate a steady return from its interest that could sustain a smaller enterprise. I would dedicate that income to an institution of free higher education. Perhaps its enough money to establish a small alternative institution along the lines of Deep Springs or Black Mountain College. Or maybe provide housing for students that cannot afford it, or maybe its only enough to provide scholarships for a handful of students and colleges of their choosing. Most students in this country cannot attend a college without being forced into taking a ridiculous amount of student loans that will haunt them years after their graduation, or do not have the economic freedom whatsoever to attend higher education. Balancing the iniquity of education derived from economic status is a step towards a reality of equal opportunity in this country. And while it seems like a very small scale intervention from such a large amount of money, its ensured survival overtime is more valuable than a lone grand gesture.
If I have to be honest, I am really thankful for my teachers. Through a profession of sacrifice they have really had a strong effect on me. The longer I stay in school, the more seriously I take it, and the feeling of regret about not paying attention in a single math class in high school grows stronger.
At some point one starts to realize parents and teachers are real people who make mistakes, and are just as selfish and immature as you are and yet they carry themselves with the wisdom for which they are held accountable. They are required to behave sagely, yet reach and inspire people personally every day, often in heartbreaking conditions of backwards bureaucracy. How thankful am I to be a student and not a teacher. So this Thanksgiving I want to give it up to the teachers and parents as teachers, who are rarely given enough credit. Go call or write your favorite teacher and tell them thanks.
* * *
As for what I don't give thanks for, I know this is rather abstract, but I could do with less greed and corruption in the world. I have a love-hate relationship with the fundamentals of capitalism. On the one hand, I believe it's a flawed system that depends on the exploitation of people and resources or the oppression of people as consumers. (Not to mention awful side-effects such as the homogenization of cultural production through commodification.)
At the same time, though, I grant that it is a pretty ingenious system that fundamentally doesn't do too much more than monetize and organize the concept of value or wealth. Theoretically relative to the cruel forces of survival in the natural world, it is fair. So why has this system produced such an unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power? Of inequity? Witness the ridiculous globe-trotting abilities of some versus the total lack of economic freedom of others. It is only when the system is cheated or manipulated through corruption -- and this is not rare, sadly -- that we see the terrible conditions it is capable of creating.
So this Thanksgiving, on the cusp of an economic recession, material resource depletion, and a James Bond film lacking suaveness or actual dialogue, take a moment to think about what wealth really means. If the most powerful people were much more rigorous capitalists, they would understand that behaving solely in economic self-interest is not in anyone's long term interest—not even theirs.
Article 9 of the Japanese constitution known as the No War clause renouces the right of soverignty and the refusal to settle disputes using mililtary force. The official English translation of the article reads:
"ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."
The article is somewhat controversial because its origins are conflicted and many believe that it was forced into the japanese constitution by Allied powers after World War II. To me it reads like one of the most honorable, enlightened and civilized principles I have read in the governing laws of a society and its authorship or acceptance is inspiring.
The submission of a nation’s army and war waging capabilities seems unimaginable for America, a nation born out of violence. Cowboys, guns, uniforms, and Manifest Destiny are ingrained in the American identity. But Japan’s history is not so different. Japanese culture emerged in a feudal era governed by a warrior class of samurai. And the Japanese state in the 20th century was characterized by colonialism and militarization. From the Meiji to Showa period Japan extended its rule and force to South Korea, parts of China, and Taiwan similar to US interventions in South America. So maybe we are not so far as we think from Japan in this evolutionary step in foreign policy.
Immaculate Conception
Graphite on Vellum
The gay marriage ban is a clear example of religious prejudice/discrimination/bigotry. I don’t know which is more outrageous: That a gay couple cannot get married in California or that they do not have the right to adopt a child in Utah?
Thomas Beatie, a man who used to be a woman, is married to a woman and is pregnant for the second time. His situation raises a lot questions about parenting a child. Is he a father or is he a mother?
One thing is certain: As scientific advances permit people to inhabit the outskirts of nature, the literal interpretation of religious texts becomes more problematic. I am so relieved that in 2004, 42.6% of people in America believed God created man in his present but only 29.1% believe that God is angered by human sin.
That's why I drew this piece.
Progressive is a word that has come to define some of the greatest and worst rock bands (the Beatles and Kansas), a brand name for insurance (Progressive), and has largely been accepted as a synonym for "alternative" (as in, "My daughter attends a progressive school").
But embodied in the word is and always has been the idea of moving forward. If I take a step forward towards a door, I am one step close and I have progressed towards it. However the one-dimensional aspect of the word and its binary implications of backwards and forwards is misleading. It assumes there is a door in front of me and a straight line to progress towards it. (What's behind that crazy door anyway?) In reality, the idea of moving forward is much more complicated, The axis of history and development is multi-dimensional and defined by a variety of values giving different directions and orientation to what progress is and isn't.
Moving backwards, in fact, can be a form of progress. A person who rides a bike or the train or even a horse today could be considered a much more forward-thinking person than the one who drives a car every day, even though the automobile, freeway systems, and the suburbs were all once hailed as signs of progressive living. So keeping in mind that the definition of progressive is largely determinate on one's own personal or collective values. Now is the time for our generation, through conversation and debate, to define our problems and aspirations and progress accordingly.
I am joining Whyroots because I find the medium of conversation as the medium or process for generating ideas incredibly powerful and important. In my experience, critical conversation often takes form in either mind numbing superficiality or elitist theoretical rhetoric.
Whyroots is a place to question things intelligently through a new vernacular, where I can participate in a collective relationship and critique a range of issues which I find relevant to my life. I see Whyroots as a tool that not only allows me to gain a fuller understanding of issues discussed but to make discoveries that may guide and inspire my life and work.
RSS Feed