I am very disappointed in my Kindergarten class.

I remember, I really do, looking at my young classmates and thinking “Great, this is a no-brainer, we can stop this bad behaviour”.

Well, maybe not those exact words but that is a honest paraphrase of my assumptions in during my early public school years. For me, I did not know what racism, environmentalism, sexism or even classism was. I only learned about these “ism’s” when a special adult visitor would present to us the definition and told us about these issues and we can grow up in a world without these problems.

Sure! Sign me up! Where do I vote?

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one left from those years who holds onto these early directives. You see, Rob Ford is of my generation and he’s an asshole. Stephen Harper is in my generation and he’s an asshole. Danielle Smith? Asshole. Rona Ambrose? Asshole. Hell, Vladimir Putin is of my generation and he’s most definitely an asshole. It’s not that these people are assholes per se that alarms me, but they are the tip of the iceberg for the asshole generation my Kindergarten class turned into.

We see my generation reflected in the urban sprawl, the environmental death by a thousand paper cuts, the derision of students who demand affordable tuition, by any concept that does not somehow sound like an economic formula. We see it in hating second-class people who get health care or the hatred for homosexual love. More than ever, as a whole, we have slid back into a dark and selfish place where extreme hatred, conservatism and short-sighted gain are the only currency.

Fuck you my Kindergarten class. You had a chance to stop this madness before it go this bad and you fucked it up. You know that mean, stinky neighbour who would scowl at us whenever we were having too much fun too close by? You are worse than that adult now. You will be the generation that is remembered that way forever or at least for however long we have left on this planet. You became a larger and scarier version of your parents.

I should not have said that about the planet. I now realize concepts like “planet” are too large for my Kindergarten classmates to grasp and provides the dismissive point they need to escape from my entire argument. I need to keep my arguments within the confines of the local mall, soccer field and vague economic platitudes.

Sometimes, when I think back to those adults educating us about social issues, I wonder if this had the opposite effect of imposing these negative attitudes onto us. I did not realize my friend was a visible minority until it was pointed out me and that we should not pick on my friend. So, of course, we did. Look at the amount of propaganda we suffered at the hands of the dairy industry about “the four food groups”. That was a chart for life long health problems.

I am much more hopeful about the millennial generation. They have access to ideas outside of the confines of their households and remote education industry bureaucracies. They see more of the material effects of the previous generations on the world around them and the world everywhere. They understand there is a world because there was instant news of the world as they grew up. Best of all, they treat things I say and things anyone from my generation says with innate scepticism and doubt.

Yes! These are the tools I was missing from my early school years. This is why, despite all the doom and gloom I’ve mentioned above, I am certain that we are living in conservatism’s last grand gasp. Though through my entire lifetime I will be squirming under the thumb of assholes I now know this is likely the strength of a death’s grip. It is already fading because the forces of progression, smashed into a million pieces by corporate hammers, are quietly still working away and changing that one thing that defies all right wing philosophy: culture.

I thought of this while listening to a Pete Seger interview on the radio.

Verizon vs Bell, Rogers & Telus: What side Canadian Artists should support.

This is an easy answer – all Canadian artists and cultural workers should support opening the market to international telecommunication companies just like Verizon.

And now comes the fun part – explaining why!

For artists and Canadian culture in general this is a terrible sanction to have on us during this emerging period of online productions. Think about it – with data being so expensive in Canada and so comparatively cheap everywhere else in the world, our ability to produce and consume digital work is handicapped. We’ll put less work up, and we’ll watch less and the work that is up there has less production value, making us a bit of a laughing stock internationally.

Look at this way – throughout history artists have usually been on the trailing edge of technology as it become more affordable. Now with the massive economics of mobile devices, artists are finally right there on the vanguard of innovation – except in Canada. We simply can’t afford to be as nimble, innovative and productive as the rest of the world.

Why? Because Bell, Rogers and Telus have been lying and manipulating us in order to maintain a monopolistic strangle hold on the tiny Canadian market and leave us with the some of the highest rates in the world for internet, text messages and data transfer. I know this is not exactly news to most people, but incredibly many people out there are still sympathetic to these big three players because, apparently, they will believe whatever commercials and lobbying messages are put on the TV by the people who they are paying money to watch these commercials and lobbying messages on TV.

Below is a summation and rebuttal, point by point, of their main points throughout recent years, as seen on TV:

1. People illegally downloading movies are causing more strain on the system so that’s why prices are high.

That’s like saying if your neighbour is watching a lot of TV, your cable bill will go up.  Or lots of people are mailing books to each other that they stole from their local libraries, so stamps will increase in price. Usually something being used used more frequently usually results in it becoming cheaper – no matter the content being downloaded, someone is still paying for that bandwidth.

Also, look through these companies Business packages. They tend to espouse how fast and growing their networks are – but when dealing with their retail service, then suddenly they need you to pay more for less. Neat trick.

2. The internet is growing and becoming faster. It’s expensive to keep up these standards so that price is reflected in our bills:

You may be surprised to find this out but in fact the internet is very fast and rather boundless by it’s very nature – what you are actually paying for is the technology and marketing these big three companies use to actually slow down the internet to various levels and sell it back to you with caps on the speed and amount you can download.

3. They have internet packages that are very reasonable for the amount people use them:

No they are not reasonable. If I go above my monthly cap, then I have to pay $10 per Gigabyte – 10 FUCKING DOLLARS! – per gigabyte. Most people don’t even know what a gigabyte is so these telecommunication companies will get away with this exploitative and unethical behaviour. And frankly, it is nobody’s business what I use my internet for any more than it is what books i read or what kind of music I listen to. But my point here does apply to being an artist who uploads many photos and other media to websites, and this hampers that.

Now the really evil part – Bell, Rogers and Telus are adjusting their internet packages so that it is very fast for everyone but lowering the amount of data you are “allowed” to use. This means people will literally be able to race to their caps faster and thus have to pay exorbitant fees ($10 per Gigabyte!!!!) based on the small print of their contracts, which also have steep penalties for breaking contracts early or even for not returning the low-quality mass-produced modems they supply. For example, the modem we have is probably worth about $80 retail. If we do not return it when we cancel their contract, we have to pay $800. When they get the modem, they’ll just dispose of it.

4. Bell and Rogers are Canadian – we should support Canadian businesses!

Keep this is mind: Bell and Rogers are also international companies and would in a heartbeat trade places with Verizon. All of these companies are the same and view you the same way, so you should treat them the same as well. What is important here is that if companies like Verizon are allowed into our market, the price for data for people like you and me will drop considerably.

The disparity in access to available networks in North America becomes even more ludicrous when you consider the fact large corporations are enjoying international free trade agreements, but we as individuals are not benefiting.

5. Bell, Rogers and Telus will provide better Customer Service.

Anyone who is Canadian and does not work for Bell, Rogers or Telus will agree that these companies have been terrible to their customers and only very slightly, begrudgingly better since more competition seems to be looming on the horizon.  For most of us, we’ve talked to each about this and shared our revenge fantasies of someday seeing the demise of these companies.

In conclusion, there are changes coming. The CRTC has, finally, made a ruling to limit the contracts, alleviate unreasonable roaming and other charges and provide some price relief. Not sure why they have not stepped in before to help protect citizens, as that is supposed to be their job.

In the meantime, my family and I have switch away from the evil three and gone with an ethical re-seller of Bell (you cannot escape the reseller status of all independent telecommunication companies in Canada. They are all re-sellers of Bell’s bandwidth because our government allowed Bell to become a monopoly over many years).

Someday, we hope to completely free and clear of purchasing any services from Bell, Rogers or Telus, and so should you.

Moments of Zen: Saving Sanford School becomes theatre of the absurd

I had a Jon Stewart type “moment of Zen” last night at the special community meeting organized to discuss the looming demolition of the 1932 Sanford Avenue School. Actually, I had several and perhaps that’s the best way to report back on what happened. I felt in danger last night of spontaneously turning into a giant insect – or at the very least, that I was viewed as one by many of the Cathy Wever School posse that composed the majority of the over 90 people in the room.

This Parking Lot brought to you by 1984

I’ll start with the moment that stands out for me and will probably haunt me for the rest of my life: A staff member of the Cathy Wever School actually stood up and passionately – emotionally even – defended keeping the east end of the parking lot as her friends “drive to work everyday. Where are they going to park!?!”. She was offended and angry at my idea of putting the proposed soccer field there *instead of* demolishing a perfectly good heritage building.

My mind unpleasantly expanded then contracted in that instant. Here was a public school staff member advocating tearing down a historically significant piece of architecture in favour of parking. Maybe the bureaucracy of a school board taking that posistion is not a surprise, but one tends to hold a romantic idea that individual people in the public education industry would see the intrinsic value in a historic building of world-class design as an ideal environment for young minds – for now and future generations in the community. But she doesn’t think that way. She wants to see it leveled as soon as possible, erased from the landscape of the neighbourhood and the community’s memory. If you wonder where the problem with kids being disengaged from the value of academics comes from, then the culture of the adults working with them in the public school system is probably as good a place as any to look at. Actions like this is how attitudes become ingrained in children.

Mitt Romney’s campaign strategy works in Ward 3

The next moment of Zen for me was suddenly feeling like I understood Barack Obama’s flustered frustrations in debating Mitt Romney’s overly simplistic and misleading “I’ll give you all jobs” mantra. Last night, simply take out “jobs” and drop in “parks for the kids” and you have the position of the School Board staff, City officials and parents in the face of overwhelming evidence that demolishing Sanford School was not desirable or necessary in order for the kids to have parks and a soccer field on that site.

We tried to point out that there is no approved funding for replacing Sanford School with anything but an empty lot. We pointed out that a mere 40 parking spots could be moved to get that park, that soccer pitch there. We proved there were parties with the expertise and means to turn the empty school into a vibrant community fixture. We proclaimed our support for everything the parents wanted for their children – but none of this reality seemed to matter. It fell on deaf ears. It truly was a moment where any meaningful discussion was simply not possible in the face of what bizarrely could be called “park propaganda”. Effectively, all they did was help ensure local kids will likely grow up with another giant, empty lot that acts as another barrier to this area’s chances of economic recovery. Has anyone actually calculated the loss of tax revenue for the City of Hamilton in allowing a development friendly building to be demolished?

One developer told me property taxes would be “about $150,000 a year”. Imagine what that kind of injection could do this for this community. I keep thinking that is one expensive parking lot.

A warbling, sentimental speech about how kids love parks

This was the first moment where many of us looked at each other with incredulity. The chair and trustee of the school board read off a rambling speech about how he grew up in a more affluent area of town where there were parks for the kids. As a kid, he loved parks. His kids love parks. Kids love parks. Parks are important for kids. Kids here should have parks. Parks for kids is what the kids want. Parents want their kids to be in parks.

This turned out to be perhaps the most strategically clever moment of the entire night – he set the divisive tone to set the two groups against each other . The Cathy Wever School crowd clung to this “all or nothing / with us or against us / you’re for the kids or against the kids” politics that reminded me of the playbook of Vic Toews. They opted for passion over reason, and framed those of us trying to participate in this process as the agents of passion over reason. A neat trick.

Another deft result this long winded prepared speech had was to eat up valuable time, as the meeting had an expiration date of two hours. Two hours to somehow fight through the noise, and several times our Trustee and Councilor dismissed presented options because they were not “concrete enough”. It was impossible to present what they claimed was needed to earn a reprieve in the demolition of Sanford. This was crazy. Some might call it a sham.

It must also be pointed out that the childhood neighbourhood Tim Simmons waxed sentimental about is Westdale – an area that was allowed to keep their heritage school building. They have green space and bike paths. They have two way streets, with parking spots on them, in lieu of the vast parking lots that are central to the Sanford School debate. Westdale is an area of town that is one of the best places to live in Hamilton, with a very high quality of life.

Uncovering a conspiracy of lazy neighbours and developers

“You’re lying” one parent outright accused us, in response to our claim that our neighbours and ourselves were not provided an opportunity to participate in the consultation process. This ugly acccusation was the tone for the pro-demolotion group of school staff and parents in dismissing our concerns, and was dramatically presented enough to warrant being repeated in some news reports of this meeting.

If we think about this for moment, it makes no sense that we are lying about not knowing. I’ve probably put in more than a hundred hours over the last ten days to this decisision, and there are my neighbours and development professionals in the community all expressing alarm at being caught off guard. Almost ninety people showed up to this meeting precisely because of this public consultation process being flawed from the outset. I, and almost certainly the rest of the citizens protesting this process, would rather have had a chance to attend a more civil, constructive and publicly announced community meeting *before* this decision was made. Claiming we knew this was going to happen all along, and that we knew there was a meeting and simply were too lazy to attend and do anything about it until a Herculean last ditch effort is ridiculous.

But this meeting was not about thinking this through. This meeting was about stirring up emotions and hurling accusations at a community that does not happen to be part of the Cathy Wever School. These are classic political strategies for dividing a community, isolating the group that disagrees with you and then conquering your opposition.

Why did the chicken cross the road? For every other reason but to get to a park.

The same parent then described how one of her children got hit by a car crossing the street to the extremely close Woodlands Park. This was to demonstrate that there needed to be a park beside the school.

Remember when I mentioned earlier that no one is arguing against having a park or soccer field at Cathy Wever School? Any reasonable position that was not pro-demolition got swept aside by dramatics and emotional statements. The councilor, school trustree and city officials in attendance did nothing to record the conversation so as to dissuade this sort of distraction.

The vast majority of these parents and children have to cross these dangerous streets twice a day to get to the school and then return home. Many of them cross the vast soccer field at Woodlands Park to get to the school, which is about a one minute walk away.

This also, astonishingly, did not spark the notion for this group that the neighbourhood would be better served by safer streets, including segregated bike lanes. It further eroded the validity of my side’s position – we were forced to somehow try to justify small children getting hit by cars or do crazy things to the streets that these people did not care about at all. Most of the staff and decision makers drive in and out of this community to arrive at an area with an excess of parking. Why would they care about that extraneous, unrealistic solutions we were putting forward? This is, of course, more absurdity. This emphasis on driving on dangerous, huge streets that are virtual highways in this community is what put this parent’s child in danger in the first place, and is directly correlated to the view point that Sanford School needs to be demolished to make a park that is safer for the kids to get to.

No one mentioned the crossing guards who attend the intersection to and from Woodlands Park before and after school. In retrospect, I don’t feel like pointing that out would make any difference at all.

Back to the Future … of Parking

I need to make clear here, as I tried to make clear over and over to the crowd last night, that the core issue here is the city planners not considering shifting 40 parking spots to somewhere else. They could move the spots to the street, which is huge and under utilized. They could have the staff and employees of Cathy Wever School and the Norman “Pinky” Lewis Recreation Centre park at one of numerous empty lots close by and save the remainder of spots for clients and parents. Who has not had to walk a block to work or home after parking? Apparently, the staff of Cathy Wever School find this concept unthinkable. In turn, I find this deeply disturbing and frankly irresponsible.

Did this proposed solution gain any traction? None at all. Did any other option proposed get considered? Nope.

Seems like what we needed was a community developer with a proven track record to show up and present another option that would benefit the community by keeping and developing the school, and with some frank professional criticisms of the current plan that some of the parents and staff may be unaware of. Michael Clarke, a local lawyer and developer who was involved in key parts of the success of James Street North, did just that.

He was dismissed immediately by the Trustee for his “sales pitch”. Yet, his was the message that the school board and councilor claimed was absent that led to the decision to demolish Sanford School. The only thing he could have done that might of immediatly changed some minds was show up with a giant pile of money and perhaps NickelBack to play a pro-Sanford concert on the gymnasium stage while tossing out free bottles of vodka and soccer balls to the assembled crowd.

Clarke was asking for some time to be able to propose a plan – something that was impossible to do given he has had only 10 days to prepare and further hindered by the fact demolition can start next month

I have to list these other obvious questions that were not addressed last night:

Why is the rec centre expansion not incorporated into the Sanford School building?

Why was the Cathy Wever School building not incorporated into the Sanford School building?

If parking is and will be such a large problem, then why are solutions such as a underground parking and / or a parking structure not considered?

Would the millions of dollars saved by not demolishing Sanford and by utilizing it as part of the Cathy Wever School / Norman “Pinky” Lewis centre instead of re-building a structure from scratch be better used for a parking structure?

A passionate plea for our insurance and bureaucracy heritage.

More existential angst inducing moments have to be credited to the various public officials who offered helpful insights as to the impossibility of simple actions like fixing the broken boilers at Sanford School or spending any of the millions of dollars supposedly earmarked for demolition and expansion on any other option. If it’s not insurance issues, well then it’s an issue with the Ministry. Or the bureaucracy is “too big a machine” to change direction on – and the trustee and the councilor could not change anything because there were other people involved. People who were not there last night and will only hear our side of the debate via the councilor and the trustee.  And there is absolutely no way to consider moving parking spaces.

You would think the common threads of elected officials and our tax money might be more important to finding a better solution than not trying at all – but you would be mistaken in this case.

Crouching community, Hidden agenda

To me the most terrible aspect of this sordid affair was the manufactured nature of the community consent for demolishing Sanford. When the City and School Board “consulted” the community, they only consulted stakeholders inside the Norman “Pinky” Lewis and Cathy Wever School organizations and not any of the residents who are not part of these organizations. They are of course supposed to, and there is a mention of a public information meeting in 2010, on paper, but there was no notice posted outside the school and no notices distributed to the community. Not to my house, and not to my neighbours.

Other disturbing facts about this process is that Sanford was declared “surplus” 10 years ago – meaning no developer or organization was even allowed to present any other option for the building. And now, incredibly, the school trustee and councilor claim that there was no interest in it so they had no choice.  It is a fact organizations and developers did approach the school board about Sanford – and they are lining up now to take a shot at acquiring it – but were rebuffed because it was unavailable. One organization was told “the city has plans for it, so we can’t accept any other interest in it”.

A few more of my hairs went grey just typing that, and I think I’m developing an eye tick.

One of the victims of this boondoggle is the Cathy Wever Hub – a service provider for this area that wants expanded green space, more basketball courts and more facilities for the kids. They did not advocate destroying our built heritage but sort of got blamed for it by the politics of the situation – the city, the school board and the Cathy Wever School group all point to them as a “community” that were consulted. The Hub called this special meeting last night to correct this assumption and bring the community – my neighbours and myself – together to talk to the real forces behind these decisions. When I first spoke, I tried to help clarify this as well by citing Hamilton Community Foundation policy that Hubs are not neighbourhood associations (and neither are school or recreation staff, for that matter). I think that was a tactical mistake on my part – the Hub people thought I was attacking them and the parents / school staff thought I was undermining their place in the debate. It was ridiculous.

To me, the real victims last night are the duped parents and kids of Cathy Wever School who unfortunately think they are getting green space anytime soon. If it happens, and that’s a big if, then it would be earliest at 2016 and may take to 2022 or even later. To me, some of the worst culprits in this misinformation are those who happen not to be elected, or at all accountable to the larger community but exert great influence over the thinking of the parents and kids in attendance last night – the staff of Cathy Wever School. The feedback of the staff at Cathy Wever School, while  important, is not a community consultation. There was no proper community consultation or public notifications. This is kinda indisputable at this point but, in another moment of zen, appears to simply not matter. The rules of process do not matter here. This is not democracy – this is my local public school.

An apology from the worst culprit of all

That would be me, because last night I allowed the emotion and passion of the immediate situation to affect me. I sneered, I snorted and I quipped out of turn – it was very rude of me and I apologize to everyone there. It did not reflect well on the point my neighbours and I were trying to make, and played into the perception that we were being unreasonable. There is a saying that you should never argue with an idiot because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. I was beat by engaging on a gut reaction emotional level and that compromises any future dialogues with the same groups of people. Though those who were there from start to finish can attest to the many triggers that led to such emotion, I can only imagine what those arriving half way through must have thought.

A tool for preserving our democratic heritage emerges from the rubble

Incredible. Out of the blue and without any knowledge of the Sanford School situation, a Toronto based architect phoned me today to help him build a special website. He is concerned because he is going to help with a new development in a small city and wants to make sure there is communication with the community, and an online forum for tracking feedback on the proposed public project. Citing problems with public meetings where a few aggressive people can dominate any conversation, he thinks together we can help define a template for developers and a community to engage meaningfully over the course of “at least two years” before the project is started.

Compared to what has been happening here, I almost cried. There are people out there who want the same things, there is hope. Together, we are going to build this tool which may help prevent what culminated in the frustrations of last night.

Perhaps the best part of all is that I am going to name this content management tool for developers “Sanford”. This beautiful building may become an empty lot, but the lessons learned here may help other communities. In this way, I will help preserve some of our built heritage the best way I can.

A common thread through the LCBO, art openings, the g8/g20 and access to water:

Since I wrote about the wine being illegal at art openings in Ontario a little while ago, and there’s even more restrictions I have been informed of. It’s no secret that after years of kowtowing to the LCBO to pay and fill out no sale special occasion permits for art openings, I now fully support going “off the grid” with your art openings – if possible.

Being technically ADD, as most creative types are, means I am a bit dis-organized and distracted  at times but our kind have the super-power of lateral thinking and seeing the big picture of a situation, making connections between factors and relationships. I will attempt to demonstrate a connection I am seeing between the individual and the LCBO, the g20 and event venues. Seriously. Ok, here goes:

1) I have been informed by other gallery administrators that LCBO employees are “cracking down on galleries” and are now demanding a list of invited guests in advance. Their reasoning? That “it’s the same as a wedding – you would not have strangers off the street just showing up to drink the wine.” Um, ok. Hard to argue with someone who has a fundamentally idiotic and flawed perception of the issue at hand. Anyways, some employees are being ambitious enough to find a gallery website for “evidence” of advertising for an art opening and printing it out to show the applicant why they will not be allowed to serve guests wine at their art openings. Yep, good job. We live in a province where you have to line up at one of two corporate-controlled franchises to purchase spirits or beer, and the people who work there will stalk your cultural blog to prevent you from doing something that is slightly less old than prostitution – that is, drinking something fermented in front of something someone drew. Why has Quebec not degraded into a lawless, despot hellhole where they eat babies at art openings and there are burning husks of cars in the street? Answer: because they are too busy laughing at Ontario and deservedly so. Apparently, the way around this to provide a huge list of, say, 500 people so when an inspector shows up and sees 100 people then they won’t charge you. If they count 101 people and you provided a list of 100, then you will be fined.

Is it just me or is this sounding like a Kafka story? Like 1984? Like a fascist regime? Like The Unbearable Lightness of Being?

Where the hell is CARFAC in all of this? Anyways, I digress…but my main point is connected to the response to protests as described below…

2) The g8/g20 is in Toronto right now and they have achieved a surreal and existentialist state of bliss by granting a fence more rights than a human being. The police are everywhere – and not just downtown either. I’m in Parkdale right now and literally there are cops every few minutes going by outside. Apparently, I support people blowing up people with bombs if I don’t like this. They will intimidate, harangue and detain you if they don’t like the looks of you (starving artists beware!) and even though I know, you know, they know and everyone knows doing this is illegal it is accomplishes the goal of intimidation and locking you up for the duration of the g8/g20. And that is directly related to the following observation about corporate control of water…

3) My partner was telling me about attending some lectures related to issues surrounding the g8/g20 last night – at a concert hall where they have a strict “no outside food / water policy” and forced everyone to dump out their water before entering. More specifically during a really hot day they made water rights activists dump out their water from environmentally friendly containers.  Inside, there was expensive bottled water and a small and expensive selection of junk food. This is not unusual – outdoor festivals do this all the time and force you to shell out big bucks for water inside a tightly controlled environment. This disgusts me – it is one small step away from charging people for using a venue’s oxygen. They will hire people to search people to make sure no illegal water can be smuggled in. It is a basic necessity to survive and is required by all at all times of the day – by controlling and charging for it is vile and the worst example of what is wrong with our society, in my opinion.

So, what is my point with these three examples?

The connection here is the theme of the dignity of the individual versus the industry of taking away the individual’s dignity. No, I am not talking about manufacturing plants or smelting ore. I am talking about the artificial industries of control and regulation in all three examples. With art openings, the monopoly of beer and wine distribution continues to create a false sense of impending crisis and is creating more bureaucracy (translation – more jobs!) to control areas of culture they should not be interfering with at all by making absurd rules that are difficult to fight – it is an economy of intimidation and helps ensure a monopoly for many years to come.

In the second example, it is no secret that the industry of fear has spawned unreal spending on security and the military. By public protesting we have given a perfect excuse to spend more on more cops, wanna-be cops, fence makers, camera installers, sonic beam scientists, cop car contracts, lawyers, snacks for cops, pepper spray stores – oh the jobs and industry based on fear is truly awesome!

And finally, the control and security around people’s need to drink water is the absurd but logical extension of this kind of attitude. Not only do you create jobs by people stopping people drinking water in hot and crowded outdoor environments, but also support things like offshore drilling to keep creating plastic bottles and creating recycling plants and restaurants where the water distributors can meet for lunch with the festival/ venue management.

Which brings me to me final point – whose fault is this anyways? How did this get to this absurd point?

Well, the fault is entirely yours and mine actually. These degrading and humiliating industries that are based a very dim view of humanity have been allowed to grow and blossom because we let it arise. I imagine in other countries and even long ago in ours the three situations I listed above would be ignored en masse  and thus cease to exist and preserve a collective dignity. Perhaps some of the massive funds being gobbled up by the military, intelligence agencies, petty government bureaucrats and greedy food and beverage corporations would instead be diverted to such areas as health care, arts and education. Call me crazy, but that seems to be a better use of money and better tools for a healthy and dignified society.

So what do we do now? As usual, it is now up to artists, writers and the intellectuals to scream and scream about it until things slowly change. It’s not that free speech is technically a problem anymore, it is that the majority of our population lives in the suburbs and are far too distracted by shopping for new TVs, arguing with neighbors about property lines and entertaining the kids with Disney movies in the back of the minivan to pay attention to such un-fun issues – unless it was encapsulated in a hollywood blockbuster. Because arts and ideas are not supposed to be entertainment but unfortunately it has to be to have any real chance to change things.

The mob rules, people, and unfortunately I see no sign of enough people giving enough of a shit to engage in meaningful civil disobedience. People are taught to distrust other people – and to see money in education and arts as a luxury. But paying someone to stalk galleries on social media to see if there is a party going on, paying cops to drag youth off to jail for gathering in public and paying for oil spill clean-up is somehow a better use of our resources.

Less mass media and more going to galleries each week would probably solve this, but I am frankly not hopeful that things will improve anytime soon. I know I can be caustic on this blog, but my vision was to have a space where I could say things that perhaps other people wanted to say but could not for fear of reprisal or politics.