It is an election year, and gratuitous advertising by the species known as Politician, proliferates again over hill and dale. Late last week an advert by the most blessed of the mayoral chosen for Glendale, appeared in my neighborhood on HOA maintained public property. I truly contemplated a means of attack. Perhaps damage the support so that the display looked shabby and unprofessional. Maybe deface the message in some way. I thought and I thought about it.
Fortunately, someone, maybe even a representative of the HOA removed the eyesore, saving me from a risk of criminal charges. Whew! Still, it caused me to ponder the rights of men in this grossly commercialized society. By chance, I happened upon the following quotation from a rather infamous graffiti artist, political activist, film director, and painter known as BANSKY.
Bansky on Advertising
“People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are THE ADVERTISERS and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs. “
Tags: Advertisement
Jeffrey Foucault and Mark Erelli – Tom Merritt
Lately a fascination for all things cowboy has consumed me. Call it the 25 year curse, if you will. That being time spent in Arizona. Add to that another 8 years or so in Houston, Texas and you might understand how a certain amount of Southwestern culture might stick to a fellow.
Country music always rubbed me the wrong way. At least, as promoted on the air ways these last 50 years or so. Folk music and even blue grass holds a larger appeal because it just is not so pretentious. I call it down home music.
The cut here, from the 2010 album entitled: Seven Curses was written by Richard Buckner and Edgar Lee Masters and sung here quite well by Jeffrey Foucault, a folk singer from Wisconsin.
Enjoy.
Tags: alternative music, Cowboy, Indie music
In the 12 November 2010 Glendale Republic, Scott Bungaard (R-Peoria) shills for the anti-casino crowd, largely on the back of arguments shot down in 2002 when voters passed Proposition 202, known as the “Indian Gaming Preservation and Self-Reliance Act” (IGPSRA). Ironically, Scotty argues that voters wanted just the opposite, claiming Prop 202 mostly sought to limit the number and location of tribal casinos in Arizona, that preserving a 10 year agreement which allowed local Native American tribes to manage Arizona based casinos was only a minor byproduct of the law.
Like most lies, there must be some bit of truth in order to promote the falsehood. In this case, quotas were indeed placed on tribal gambling devices, and casinos were limited to being hosted on tribal land. That’s it. Any additional interpretation, such as voter desire to keep casinos away from our communities, is pure fabrication. Bungaard’s tale is a revision of the political reality of 8 years ago.
Let’s examine the basis for Prop 202, as explained in Sec. 2 of the Amendment itself, entitled: “Declaration of Purpose”. In 7 small paragraphs, the history of Indian casinos is told. We learn that the roots of Tribal Gaming began in 1988 with a Federal pronouncement “confirming the right of Indian tribes to conduct limited, regulated gaming on their own land”. Consequently, “since 1992, Arizona statute has authorized the governor of the state to negotiate tribal-state compacts on the state’s behalf” as required by the Federal decision. Those brokered compacts were set to expire in 2003, and from the beginning of their enactment, were contested by Arizona racetrack interests – who claimed that special privilege granted Indian gaming, violated State law.
As stated in Proposition 202, “the Indian Gaming Preservation and Self-Reliance Act is designed to address this situation”, by amendment to Arizona Statutes, so that new compacts can survive legal challenges, seeking to gut these agreements. As stipulated, finite numbers and types of gaming devices, and fixed maximum numbers of gaming facilities were allotted per listed tribe, with the stated intent — regulating gambling influence throughout the state. A complicated method of calculating gambling device movement from location to location was specified. A thorough description of revenue shares resulting from gambling profits was carefully laid out, describing the economic benefits for social services of gaming entertainment. In regard to the physical location of Indian casinos, this proposition simply stated, that Indian managed gambling is permissible only on tribal owned land.
Recently, a shadow Internet effort under the name “Keep the Promise” (KEP) surfaced, whose proponents infer that the passage of Proposition 202 almost a decade ago, was intended to limit the proximity of Indian casinos to some far off land, or as they state “traditional land”, whatever that means. The word “traditional” cannot be found anywhere in Prop 202, and verbal amendments to Arizona Statute, based on assumed intent, are never allowed. More to the point, a look at current Maricopa county gaming locations will show that the newest existing casino facilities reside as near to urban areas as their boundaries will allow. KEP, under a sly pseudo-statement of “who they are”, disclose coyly that they are “Arizonans like you”. WTF?
Polls continue to back casino construction at the proposed Glendale location. People vote with their wallets, as the old saying goes, according to Jim Haynes, president of the Phoenix-based Behavior Research Center, which conducted the survey for the Tohono – O’odham Community. And those voting citizens favor the commercial interest generated, and the entertainment value created by an urban west side casino.
Scotty just won’t stop spinning a hidden meaning of State Statute as defined under Prop 202, and trots out previously tried and rejected ethical arguments once used as counterpoints against the passage of the IGPSRA. Crime, bankruptcies and anti-family spirit were the arguments put forth by “The Center for Arizona Policy“, a non-profit closely associated with Focus on the Family – itself a stalwart conservative religious organization focused on shaping behavior according to their thinly viewed religious viewpoint. Voters shrugged and said yes to Prop 202. Linda Rawles of Mesa spoke about a fear of “sovereign immunity” in a published argument against IGPSRA, yet voters passed 202. Jon Kyl, Jeff Flake and John Shadegg, all Arizona politicos, voiced opposition to 202 on the basis of “social, cultural and law enforcement problems being exported to the state for processing”. Some might suggest racetrack interests purchased their intervention. Voters ignored these influences and passed 202.
So are Bungaard’s arguments, the will of the people, or rather Orwellian doublespeak?
It’s easy to fault right-wing blowhards as they expound on any number of knee-jerk propositions. Criticizing polemic closer to the stone is a more nuanced effort. I often follow David Safier — an Arizona local — at his site: Blog for Arizona. Another noted blogger posting on the same site goes by the nom de plume — AZ BlueMeanie. Both have intelligent things to say and generally are worth reading. Both have more time on their hands than I, and/or are extremely prolific writers, judging by post count and frequency of publication.
Late last week, Mr. Safier was praising AZ BlueMeanie for editorial comment concerning the brouhaha over the proposed Mosque to be erected near the 9-11 epicenter in New York City. My thoughts had gravitated to near sync with their expressed sentiments which consisted of a narrow interpretation of the the First Amendment. This was before speaking with my good friend Mariano Bartolomei, who editorializes on occasion, even once at this blog. Mr. Bartolomei is much more traveled than I, having even been employed as an architect in several nations in the Mid East predominantly populated by Muslims. Mr. Bartolomei, an educated man, came away from these experiences with a conviction that Islamic faith has a bit more bite to it than what one might find at your average Church social. I have no such experience to temper these observations. Yet we all have heard extremes of this argument. Briefly, is Islamic faith ruled by violence prone jihadists, or are Muslims largely sheep-like as most Christian denominations these days?
Lots of blood has been shed in Middle Eastern wars where US interests have been spectacularly involved. We might discount atrocities on both sides as excesses of battle. Fair enough. Yet these same confrontations seem to be driving the predominant Muslim nations back toward the middle ages, by portraying technology as something dangerous and foreign. Concurrently, fear and loathing has rattled Western communities exposed to practices of suicide bombers and the like. Not a good way to forge friendships. Even more unsettling, civil matters of adjudication in predominantly Moslem countries appear harsh and barbaric by Western standards. What drives this abdication of civil rights? Is it the adherence to Sharia Law or is it simple poverty? My friend Mr. Bartolomei would suggest the former and he does so in a convincing manner.
So when I read Mr. Safier’s post last week entitled: “A quick thought about the ginned up Muslim center controversy”, it read a bit too forgiving — and nobody had voiced prior comment. Naturally, I sparked the comment line late last Monday.
“At face value, I agree with tolerance as bedrock for democracy. Yet my patience is beginning to fray with the realization that Muslims refuse to enter 21st century dialog with the enlightened world. Theocracy in general, and the Islamic faith in particular offends this secular experiment which is our United States.
It is annoying to find common ground with dimwitted racists and xenophobes.
Sam Harris explains it best: Ground-Zero-Mosque “
Feathers flew: one commenter referencing Sam Harris’ contribution to the controversy said: “This is an unfortunately short sighted column by Harris.” AZ BlueMeanie pointed out that extremists existed in Christian practice too. He also declared: ‘stereotyping of Islam as a monolithic “Islamism” (the imposition of sharia law under a pan-Islamic caliphate) is a fundamental misunderstanding of the religion.’ I wonder if that is true. I’m not so sure.
So I offered one last rebuttal:
“Please do not mistake me for a Christian zealot. Pointing to Islamicists as the most egregious abusers of civil rights and the most likely to punish infidels, does not excuse the bigotry of other religions. At its core, all belief enslaves a fearful mind contemplating death, by promising eternal life. Religious practice has been employed by all governments, for its ability to gather wide spread socio-political power. The question becomes — in the 21st century — can we continue to perpetuate belief systems, where irrational adherents might threaten the survival of this planet. At the founding of this country, slavery too was tolerated but eventually ended. Imagine abolishing another form of bondage. Perhaps the beginning of another age of enlightenment.”
Solidarity at Blog for Arizona was again achieved at a second mention of enlightenment, even though the balm of tolerance was again professed for “mainstream tenets of (Muslim) faith”. With choice necessarily constrained by constitutional requirements, building any religious edifice hardly seems an exercise in good sense.
Tags: conservative anxiety, cultural anxiety, fear mongering, public opinion, religious beliefs
You have to wonder at the motivation which inspires some folks to run for office. Take first term AZ representative Republican Debbie Lesko, representing District 9 in the Arizona House. To find a similarly short-sighted Luddite, one needs look no further than U.S. Representative Trent Franks (AZ-02), a neighboring Republican who spouts parables expressing unfailing beliefs in the post-WWII era of America, as viewed through rose-colored glasses. That baby boom period was also renown for the birth of suburbia — in all its wealth and with all its warts.
These 21st century conservatives represent the residential outer edge of the Phoenix metro area, and they dream of a new golden age. These elected Republicans promise a return to a life where rural, god-fearing, white America was debt-free, in control of this country, and happy with their lot in life. Don’t you remember those great times? Late 50’s TV was full of such dribble — “Andy of Mayberry” or “Leave it to Beaver” — are examples of life only a Hollywood film crew could successfully score.
But in counterpoint, modern urban culture threatens the status quo in boom towns like Phoenix, Arizona. Rapid growth in the metro area has effectively quashed quaint cowboy-era lifestyles, in favor of multiple ethnicity. Make it stop, say Republican legislators serving conservative social agendas, hell-bent on maintaining the social norms of a bygone era. Even as they reap the benefits of privileged place born of escalating real estate values with burgeoning population, the slogan remains small town in attitude. Stoic restraint and economic puritanism mark the standard addendum. Wealth will not be denied, yet in the demographics of growth, there flourishes a diversity, which far out pace norms considered acceptable among the landholding gentry — with challenges of language, culture and economy that threaten “nativist” sensibilities.
Increasingly, population density only exasperates the problem. Conservative power consolidates and distills among champions who proclaim wisdom steeped in earlier less egalitarian times. The establishment calls for no new taxes in the face of complex and accelerating growth. Polarizing class divisions spawn suburban mega-Churches preaching the gospel of prosperity to an upwardly mobile citizenry, who are increasingly isolated from the poverty of inner city dwellers. Poor central town residents of vast numbers precipitate a wealth-reducing exodus, as well-to-dos escape in contempt for those less fortunate who remain behind. The un-washed, un-blessed are ignored by inhabitants of colossal new homes located in satellite sub-divisions of modern excess. But like the olive tree which thrives in the new wood closest to the bark and furthest from the core, ex-urban humanity grows twisted and gnarly, while inner city denizens are left to wither under a Red-State socio-economic mantra — prosper or die.
This Randian philosophy provides the background mold for sub-urban legislators like Lesko and other desert Republicans. Their traditional morality embraces a cut-and-dry simplicity of earlier, less populated times, unencumbered by complexities inherent in administering the fifth largest urban area in the nation. Their harsh economic notions reflect an equally stoic and masculine authoritarianism, encumbered in the mantle of the supernatural. Abortion as evil, provides one hot-button battle cry, operating as a diversion from the less volatile, though no less insidious drag of poverty. Social conservatives believe unborn life is both sacred and incapable of arguing with that fact. Yet once born, it’s another story — the tale of have and have not.
Tags: big business, cultural anxiety