'THE HIPSTER ' AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE 50'S NIHILISM AND THE DISILLUSIONMENT OF DOSTOEVSKY , AND THE UNERGROUND CULTURE

http://www.realitysandwich.com/agent_apathy Haddow, Douglas. "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization." Adbusters. 7/29/2008. Accessed on 11/24/2010. http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html Weir, David. Decadence and the Making of Modernism. 1995. p. xv. Accessed on 11/24/2010. http://books.google.com/books?id=WOb26cxGBfMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dec Leland, John. Hip: The History. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. p. 112 Kerouac, Jack. The Subterraneans. New York: Grove Press, 1958. p. 23. Charters, Ann. Kerouac: A Biography. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973. p. 185. Mailer, Norman. "The White Negro." 1957. Reprinted in Dissent, 6/20/2007. Accessed on 11/24/10. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=26 Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. 1963. New York: Dell Publishing, 1983. pp. 186-187. Curtis, Adam. The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom. BBC. 2007. Wilson, Robert Anton. Prometheus Rising. 1983. Tempe, AZ: New Falcon Publications, 2007. p. 58. Italics his. Trow, George W.S. Within the Context of No Context. 1980. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1997. p. 25. THE DEADEND OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS A PERCEPTION OF THE UPDATED PHENOMENON OF NIHILISM BORN OF THE SUBTERRANEAN AND UNDERSTANDABLE ABERRATIONS OF DOSTOEVSKY'S WRITINGS IN EXPERIENCING AN INTERNAL WORLD OF INEXPRESSIBLE PAIN BORN FROM HIS EXPERIENCES OF THE TOPSY TURVY WORLD OF EXPERIENTIAL CHAOS, AN OUTGROWTH OF THE BIGOTRIES COMMONPLACE AND CONCENTRATED OVER THE SPAN OF 1000 YEARS SINCE THE ROMAN WARS AND THEIR CATACLYSMS SINCE THE HADRIANIC WARS AND THE AFERMATHS OF THE EXODUS AND THE SETTLEMENTS OF EUROPE , THE BED OF THE DECADENT OF THE WEST . THE HIPSTER PHENOMENON, THE BEATNICKS, WAS THE INEVITABLE OUWARD FACE OF THIS URBAN WASTELAND, A FACE TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND A REVERSION OF THE AMERICAN PURITANISM OF THE PAST. ELIOT'S WASTELAND IS REMINISCENT OF THE WASTELAND CREATED INTHE AFTERMATHS OF THE TWO HORRENSOUS WORLD WARS. YES, INEVITABLE. WESTERN SOCIETY'S ANGER AND ARROGANCE AT LOOKING AT DEATH IS EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR POETIZING AND PERHAPS ROMANTICIZING ONE'S OWN VISIONS OF OVERLOOKING AND VIEWING THESE OBSCENE URBAN VISTAS AND EXPLAINING THEM IN A GREATER SPIRITUAL CONTEXT. I VIEW MY RATIONALE TO BE WHEN THE DIVINE HIS ITS FACE FROM US PARTLY FOR OUR OWN GOOD AS THE LIGHT OF THAT UPERNAL WORLD WOULD BLIND US IN THE TATE OF OUR PROGRESSING INFIRMITIES AND BLIGHT BORN OF OUR SELFISHNESS EMBEDDED SELF RIGHTEOUSLY IN OURCAPITALIST CREDO GLORIFYING THE ANTITHESIS OF ALL THAT WAS OUTLINED IN NEW TESTAMENT TEACHINGS WHICH ROCKED THE WORLD OF THE FIRST MANIFESTATION OF THE EPIPHANY OF THE OTHER WORLDLY AND THE GODLY. WE JUSTIFY ITS ANTITHESIS BY SMUGGLY CALLING IT SELF RELIANCE BUT MORE APTLY SHOULD BE CALLED THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST. THEN WHY NOT HONESTLY DENOMINATE IT SO AND BE DONE WITH IT , SHATTERING ALL THE ACCUMULATED PRETENSE. The following is excerpted from the upcoming book All These Serious Faces Will Only Drive You Mad. This is Part 1 in a series. Read Part 2 here. To learn more about the book, please click here. Over the last decade the cultural figure known as the "hipster" has increasingly turned into a target of scorn, despite an apparent disagreement over what the term means and to whom it refers. In his 2008 Adbusters article, "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization," Douglas Haddow provides one of the keenest descriptions of this trend in its current form. "Take a stroll down the street in any major North American or European city and you’ll be sure to see a speckle of fashion-conscious twentysomethings hanging about and sporting a number of predictable stylistic trademarks: skinny jeans, cotton spandex leggings, fixed-gear bikes, vintage flannel, fake eyeglasses and a keffiyeh…" (1) As with most recent media examinations of hipsterdom, the article laments the passing of better cultural times. Haddow argues that—whereas the usual role of youth culture has been to attack the superficiality, inauthenticity, and decadence of mainstream adult culture—today's hipsters share few mental proclivities but apathy and irony, comprising "a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society." (2) But it seems today that everyone uses the word "hipster" to identify a different kind of person. The most consistent thing about the term is that no one will self-identify as a hipster. At one time the word "hip" meant little more than "cool," yet Haddow claims that hipsterdom "is set to consume the very core of Western counterculture." (3) As to why this happened, Haddow provides two clues: the phenomenon is most highly concentrated in North America and Europe, and it marks the end point of something that started—or at least became solidified—when World War II ended in 1945. Actually, "decadence" may be a more direct precursor to today’s hipster than the word "hip" itself. In his book Decadence and the Making of Modernism, David Weir connects the artistic movement of decadence to the lifestyle movement of bohemianism, and designates the French poet Baudelaire as an "archetypal decadent figure." (4) Weir writes that decadent art is distinguished by its focus on decay, realism (as a departure from romanticism), misogyny, and a stated "superiority of art to nature." To Weir, Baudelaire’s 1856 poem "Un Charogne"—which ponders an animal carcass in the road—represents Western society beginning to stare directly at death instead of allowing it to lurk behind the veil of conscious thought. Weir says "the poem looks at death with a scientist’s eye, and sees the decaying corpse, not merely as a fact, but as the only fact, a new absolute whose power exceeds that of religion." (5) But instead of leading to humility or grace, decadence seems defined more by anger and arrogance, a sort of violent spasm of the ego following in the wake of despair. It’s basically an aesthetically impressive middle finger held up to death or God—a fabricated confidence, or a defiant defense mechanism. As to why this happened, Haddow provides two clues: the phenomenon is most highly concentrated in North America and Europe, and it marks the end point of something that started—or at least became solidified—when World War II ended in 1945. Actually, "decadence" may be a more direct precursor to today’s hipster than the word "hip" itself. In his book Decadence and the Making of Modernism, David Weir connects the artistic movement of decadence to the lifestyle movement of bohemianism, and designates the French poet Baudelaire as an "archetypal decadent figure." (4) Weir writes that decadent art is distinguished by its focus on decay, realism (as a departure from romanticism), misogyny, and a stated "superiority of art to nature." To Weir, Baudelaire’s 1856 poem "Un Charogne"—which ponders an animal carcass in the road—represents Western society beginning to stare directly at death instead of allowing it to lurk behind the veil of conscious thought. Weir says "the poem looks at death with a scientist’s eye, and sees the decaying corpse, not merely as a fact, but as the only fact, a new absolute whose power exceeds that of religion." (5) But instead of leading to humility or grace, decadence seems defined more by anger and arrogance, a sort of violent spasm of the ego following in the wake of despair. It’s basically an aesthetically impressive middle finger held up to death or God—a fabricated confidence, or a defiant defense mechanism. Weir also surveys literary critics who see in decadent art a deeper investigation of the subconscious mind, following its "discovery" by the romantics. But until Sigmund Freud published the first works establishing the field of psychoanalysis in the late 1890s, the subconscious was only known to very creative individuals who intuitively sensed the importance of one's inner life: thoughts, feelings, dreams, visions, etc. The common person living during the last 150 years has actively avoided any exploration of the subconscious. Today's hipster is a prime example, since he displays only superficial traits and seems fearful of psychic forces not in direct control of the conscious ego. The hipster's preference for alcohol and opiates over psychedelic substances reflects this notion. And death is the only concept that causes today's decadent more fear than the subconscious. So evidently Baudelaire's indignant stance toward human mortality didn’t mature into an acceptance of death—only passed through time as the "enlightened despair" that Weir points out. Angry at God or—since the decadent renounced all belief in God—angry at one's mother for subjecting him to life, the original decadent found himself detached from both family and religion. Decadent art lines up historically with the Industrial Age, when the majority of the world's population moved from rural to urban areas. This is how urban bohemian life arose, by a preference for the emerging hodgepodge of cultural hotbeds over the apparent dead-end of the rural lifestyle and the Victorian social structure. If anything, it was a willingness to subject oneself to a world of artificial decay, as opposed to the natural decay of friendships and families occurring "back home." People adapted to the urban wasteland by convincing themselves that they played a part in something immense, much in the way religion used to provide a similar feeling. The system of urban life was more realistic and therefore more profound than the intangible system espoused by the church. The flashy distractions of the city offered people an angle of self-reflection that omitted all insecurities and dark uncertainties. Finally, Weir says the decadent mentality admits its own ineffectual role as scapegoat. He quotes the Italian critic Poggioli: "The very notion of decadence, at least its modern version, is practically inconceivable without this psychological compulsion…to become the passive accomplice and willing victim of barbarism…to play a passive, and yet theatrical, role on history’s stage." (6) This acceptance of victimization carried through to the "post-modern" or "post-war" era. In his book Hip: The History, John Leland calls the span from about 1947 to 1959 "the golden age of hip, a Cold War convergence of art, image, dope, clothes, celebrity, intellectual arrogance and rebel grace." (7) Leland divides this golden age into two main movements: the jazz style then emergent known as bop, and a group of writers now ubiquitously known as "the Beat Generation." "[Charlie] Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonius Monk and a small handful of peers transformed America’s music, jazz, from a reflection of national aspirations to an unblinking critique of them. […] A generation of white writers, led by Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg, could only clock in and follow in kind." (8) In my mind, Kerouac is the ultimate hipster archetype, despite his professed disinterest in their world. Kerouac’s 1958 novel The Subterraneans provided one of the clearest visions of the post-war urban hipster. In between descriptions of a brief but heated interracial affair, Kerouac explains with hurried abandon the "subterranean hip generation tendencies to silence, bohemian mystery, drugs, beard, semi-holiness and, as I came to find later, insurpassable nastiness..." (9) Kerouac’s book formed a direct link between the '50s hipster scene and the writers of the mid-19th century. As Kerouac specifies, "The book is modeled after Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground, a full confession of one's most wretched and hidden agonies after an 'affair' of any kind. The prose is what I believe to be the prose of the future, from both the conscious top and the unconscious bottom of the mind, limited only by the limitations of time flying by as our mind flies with it." (10) Kerouac also documents the hipster's superficial traits that have survived to present time—for example, "…a woman of 25 prophesying the future style of America with short almost crewcut but with curls black snaky hair, snaky walk, pale pale junkey anemic face…her hand holding a short butt and the neat little flick she was giving it to knock the ashes…" (11) And Ann Charters, Kerouac's first biographer, writes that "at Allen’s apartment everybody hung out in grimy undershirts, torn T-shirts and battered sneakers.” (12) While Kerouac painted them as a mostly harmless bunch, Norman Mailer provides a much grittier description in his 1957 essay "The White Negro." The first hipster seems to have been a product of the exact same forces that inspired Baudelaire’s decadent poetry, only on a much larger scale. Mailer describes a type of young adult attempting to actively engage the frightening new terrain of Cold War America: "It is on this bleak scene that a phenomenon has appeared: the American existentialist—the hipster, the man who knows that if our collective condition is to live with instant death by atomic war…or with a slow death by conformity with every creative and rebellious instinct stifled…then the only life-giving answer is to accept the terms of death…to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self." (13) According to Mailer, a specific lingo defined the hipster more than anything else. "Hip" and "beat" existed in opposition, with hip being the more desirable state. Mailer’s description makes it clear that it was more of a pseudo-philosophy of abstract rationalizations, centered around the multifaceted concept of freedom. The hipster hoped for inner freedom just as much as outer freedom. Strangely, Mailer even called it a "cool religious revival," despite the lack of church-goers in the scene (other than Kerouac, a believing Catholic). Mailer probably meant "religious" more in William James’s sense of relating to a divine concept or presence. In other words, hipsters were mainly concerned with forming a subjective philosophy or value system based on one’s own life experiences. And as for what hipsters considered divine, sex was high atop the list. Objectives other than sex weren’t so specific, often getting muddled in language about motion. And an intense interpersonal competition pervaded all aspects of the hipster lifestyle. Mailer writes, "Unstated but obvious is the social sense that there is not nearly enough sweet for everyone." (14) This is an enormous part of the plot in The Subterraneans, both in literary and sexual endeavors. Thus, friendships were built on flimsy foundations, and hipsters dropped their loyalties at the first indication that the "sweet" could be obtained. Another part of pursuing sex was the hope of liberating oneself from restrictive moral codes that appeared to be governing the very people who had orchestrated the horrors of World War II. Naturally, the hipster turned to those who had never had power: African Americans, especially bop musicians. In a strange way, Mailer’s hipster represented a broadening of the social conscience, a budding awareness that the ideals at the foundation of the United States of America—freedom most of all—had never been fully realized. The recognition of jazz’s supreme expressive force inevitably led to a glorification of the bop scene and the "morality of the bottom." (15) The bop player and hipster alike "lived in the enormous present" and "subsisted for his Saturday night kicks, relinquishing the pleasures of the mind for the more obligatory pleasures of the body." But something about this kick-seeking annoyed or even infuriated the greater culture, as is evident from Mailer’s epigraph calling the hipster an "enfant terrible turned inside out." In the second-wave feminist manifesto The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan took a moment to chide the beatniks for their inaction, listing Mailer as a leader of the pack. "It was easier, safer, to think about love and sex than about communism, McCarthy, and the uncontrolled bomb. […] Norman Mailer and the young beatnik writers confined their revolutionary spirit to sex and kicks and drugs and advertising themselves in four-letter words." (16) Friedan recognized the need to take advantage of increases in higher education and career opportunities in order to make post-war America as constructive as possible. Mailer and the Beats, on the other hand, saw the immense price of creating and maintaining so-called "security" in America and called it an immoral sham. Thus, a schism formed in the general flow of American culture, giving birth to what we now call the "counter-culture." While many today celebrate the Beats for their rebellious appeal, those writers also marked a dawning appreciation for the concept of individualism. This was the first large-scale manifestation of what writers and artists had begun at least 100 years prior: looking at one's inner life, like trying to open a clock to see how the gears work. Mailer saw the hipster’s infantilism as a sign that one was working through repressed urges. Because of this volatile state of growing self-awareness, Mailer thought the hipster could be considered a "philosophical psychopath," struggling to figure out what role the individual person played in the near-catastrophe of nuclear armament that had developed in the world. In other words, all humans were acting in an infantile manner; hipsters were just externalizing it in deliberately extreme ways in order to conceptualize and hopefully change that part of one’s nature. Still, the "bohemians" in the city found themselves in a new sub-culture of frenzied panic. In The Subterraneans, Leo and Mardou claim that hipsters lived by the motto, "you take care of yourself, I’ll take care of me." (17) To these two, the American form of Existentialism was a particularly cruel and self-serving philosophy. Somehow the hipsters didn’t see that they were acting the same way as America as a whole. Minds like game theory mathematician John Nash engineered this Cold War mentality in America, promoting an picture of humans as selfish and paranoid animals. (18) Nash and others at the Rand Corporation actually recommended this stance, in order to create a social equilibrium in which one person's selfishness would be balanced against everyone else's. National leaders encouraged this behavior, and it became a staple of both domestic and foreign policy. Similarly, Mailer notes that psychopathy was on the rise in 1957. Since it was "present in a host of people including many politicians, professional soldiers, newspaper columnists, entertainers, artists, jazz musicians…and half the executives of Hollywood, television, and advertising, it can be seen that there are aspects of psychopathy which already exert considerable cultural influence." (19) While the hipster may have been largely unaware of it, he shared a hostile power drive with those running the country. This marks the onset of a key characteristic of post-war American society: an inevitable hypocrisy. From the very start, what was perceived to be a revolutionary counter-culture was based on the same foundations of human psychology that underpinned the mainstream culture, including in politics and the media. There’s no denying that the hipster’s lingo masked a lust for power, even if his top prize was an orgasm, which Mailer alternately refers to as the "holy grail" and "fountain of youth." (20) Greed, deception, and even violence characterized the hipster’s crusade for that prize, the same as any crusade. Therefore, the hipster's everlasting battle over the "sweet" played out as little more than a mammalian dominance game with major similarities to what we call free market capitalism, just as game theorists like Nash had calculated. While Mailer understood that the possibility of thermonuclear warfare was a major impetus for the hipster's existence, he didn't seem as aware that it thrust the hipster—like all Americans—into a psychologically primitive state. The hipster lived proudly with his declaration of self-interest, but in reality he had little other choice. As Robert Anton Wilson writes in his book Prometheus Rising, "Throughout human life, when the bio-survival circuit senses danger, all other mental activity ceases." (21) This would be a good time to specify that the character I'm referring to as the "hipster" is not a real person. It is a cultural construction, an approximation of certain social phenomena used to describe movements happening in society. It's an attempt to make a coherent picture out of relative chaos. Since the term has persisted from the mid-20th century into the 21st, it signifies that these social phenomena still exist in some form. But as Korzybski used to say (and Wilson used to quote), "The map is not the territory"—so please keep in mind that I’m using the term "hipster" first and foremost for convenience. As the second half of the 20th century progressed, the sexual and violent aspects of the hipster largely faded along with his philosophy. The Age of Mass Media picked up enormous speed with the appearance of the television, which pervaded most American homes by the end of the '50s. In 1980 the critic George W.S. Trow argued that TV had eliminated the common ground—or "middle distance"—between the individual and any kind of real culture, and that something would have to fill the gap. (22) But I think that the counter-culture was this first new common ground, a more youthful culture that teens and young adults felt they could interact with instead of just having it fed to them. Hence, hip urban neighborhoods served as the principal geographic component of the middle ground. And the hipsters who achieved the most fame in the '50s and early '60s—specifically those who fall into the group we call the Beat Generation—are the ones remembered today as the most authentic or admirable. People probably emulate this "golden age of hip" because it was only temporarily sampled by the Mass Media Machine. The world portrayed by Kerouac in The Subterraneans still feels more real or genuine than the post-modern world depicted on TV. __________________________________________________________________

True Radicalism in the Modern Age Submitted by Sean Strange on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 20:59. The true radical today is one who rejects global capitalism, techno-fetishism, shallow liberalism and the religion of progress in favor of tradition, timeless wisdom, spirituality and local culture. Modernity is played out; we are living in global Weimar, awaiting the collapse of the progressive project. The next prophet will not resemble William Ginsberg, Timothy Leary or Terence McKenna, but Adolph Hitler. Oddly enough, this revelation came to me first through psychedelics, and it is a vision which, though I initially resisted it, has become ever more prophetic as our culture has spiralled further downward into materialistic nihilism.

Re: True Radicalism... Submitted by Nick Meador on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 23:54. Are you sure your psychedelic visions of a coming Hitler weren't a warning about the persisting state of totalitarianism? Your comment made me think of "Pink Floyd's The Wall," with Roger Waters's visions of marching hammers and evil dictators...in the 1980s, not the '40s. Anyway, we could also argue that the likes of Ginsberg, Leary and McKenna haven't yet fulfilled their role as "prophets." I only learned about McKenna a few months ago, about the same time I found out that Leary had ideas other than "tune in, turn on, drop out." These names aren't just historical—they're part of an ongoing process.

re: what is hip? Submitted by Nick Meador on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 23:52. Thanks for writing. My goal wasn't to pidgeonhole anyone, whether Baudelaire or Dylan. My hope was to give some perspective to this character we call the "hipster," since clearly "he did not just spring out of nowhere" either (even though it sometimes seems that way). I turned 17 in 1999, and I felt it was impossible to get any real context about the world pre-1980s. It took a lot of reading to feel like I understood those eras at all. Then I noticed that some elements from the second half of the 19th century artistic, literary and intellectual movements were very foundational in our "modern" world. Not until we understand those historical ties and the progression of tendencies through time will we be able to shape our future instead of just watching it unfold.

But actually I knew little about those people I saw. I’d agree with you that people can’t be generalized according to stereotypes. What I’m saying is that the anger in Haddow’s article, and the anger I used to feel (and still sometimes feel) is natural and signifies a real social problem. But in my opinion it’s not a problem with fashion or recreation—so it has nothing to do with you or your friends. I think it’s a problem with every human being alive, regardless of nation, religion, etc. That problem will be further explained throughout my book, but the core of it is that we’re all in a spot where we feel helpless in the face of an invisible global totalitarian empire

What each of us should be doing every minute of every day is trying to find a way to break this empire down. But since that would be a superhuman task, we ultimately have to repress some of that anger to get on with our lives. The “hipster” is just a made-up idea, a symbol for that part of ourselves that is totally incapable of revolting against this machine. I think what we really hate is decadence. That shows up in various places—and we hate it the most when it's present in our own lives. However, there must be some reason we’re all projecting this anger onto urbanites. That’s what the rest of the chapter explores. It’s a question of self-knowledge and psychological development. The process of individuation requires an adequate amount of time spent totally alone, uninfluenced by the bigger forces of society. A city is the exact opposite of an individual human being; it's the furthest from "alone" that a person can get.

If you see a lot of people dressing the same way, doing the same repetitive things, and frequenting the same “scene” hot spots—that can be the mark of a collective infection. It’s the same infection that people leave in the suburbs when they move to the big city (that’s what my 2nd chapter is about). No matter how "liberal" we take ourselves to be, we're all addicted to and enslaved by a horrifying machine.

I think the anger is really because post-modern liberalism that has failed to "save" our country. Young adults in cities and universities were supposed to liberate us from the Eisenhower-model empire in the 1950s and '60s, but they didn't.

SHUTDOWN AVERTED

Federal shutdown avoided, 2012 budget fight looms YAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {}; (function(){ var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { tracking: { _S: 8903239, pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/ap_on_re_us\/us_spending_showdown", intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a' }, content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/ap_on_re_us\/us_spending_showdown", title: "Federal+shutdown+avoided%2C+2012+budget+fight+looms+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "&h1=ap/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown&h2=T&h3=519", print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/ap_on_re_us\/us_spending_showdown\/print" }, c Analysis: So much for change coming to Washington YAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {}; (function(){ var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { tracking: { _S: 85115982, pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a' }, content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", title: "Analysis%3A+So+much+for+change+coming+to+Washington+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "&h1=ap/20110409/ap_on_an/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis&h2=T&h3=2282", print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis\/print" }, config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } }; })(); Share retweet Email Print AP – President Barack Obama waves after visiting the Lincoln Memorial Saturday, April 9, 2011, in Washington. … Play Video Video:President Obama and John Boehner Seal Budget Deal ABC News Play Video Video:Raw Video: Obama visits Lincoln Memorial AP Play Video Video:GOP Address: Spending crisis still looms AP By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – Sat Apr 9, 7:57 pm ET WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised to change Washington's ways. Yet he's as caught up in them as ever. As the week began, Obama kicked off his re-election bid with a sunny video of people talking about their hopes and needs, the very image of life outside Washington politics. By week's end, Obama was mired in budget negotiations, canceling trips and scrambling to stave off a government shutdown that could only undermine the public's faith in his leadership. It was the messy business of governing, and how it's going to be in this long campaign for incumbent Obama. Beyond the vision for economic competitiveness he wants to talk about, Obama is chasing a second term while trying to make a deeply divided government work. He got bogged down in legislative tactics in his first two years, even when he won fights on health care and other issues. The goal now is to avoid all that. He can't. In this test of leadership, the White House says Obama wrangled the budget compromise he wanted, spending cuts he supported without shelving his priorities or accepting unacceptable policy changes. His administration portrayed it as an example of bipartisan cooperation of the highest stakes. Yet the government was on the brink of closing, and many people were wondering how that could happen, or why. This is change? The showdown was a reminder that for all a president's powers, there's much beyond control. Think Libya, Egypt, Japan's earthquake, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. In this case, the new House Republican majority, led by Speaker John Boehner, seized on a must-pass budget bill to give voice to frustrated voters and tea party conservatives who demanded spending cuts. It was brinksmanship mode again in the capital, where nothing gets done until the deadline. Sometimes not even then. In public, Obama tried to keep it at arm's length. "I shouldn't have to oversee a process in which Congress deals with last year's budget," Obama said as the time got short this week. In fact, he was up to his neck in it. Obama used a veto threat to make clear he would not accept the scope of GOP spending cuts. He said he would accept no more temporary extensions to keep the government running for a few weeks at a time unless there was a broader deal in hand. He kept saying leaders had to act like grown-ups. The White House said his strategy was to stay behind the scenes, work the phones and let his senior aides do the negotiating. That type of role provided an opening for Republicans to question his leadership. It also led to rumblings from frustrated lawmakers in his own party who wanted the president to openly attack the cuts Republicans wanted. The White House figured it would take those hits. It did. A Gallup poll in late March found declining numbers of people who said Obama was a strong and decisive leader: a little more than half of those polled, compared with 60 percent one year ago and 73 percent two years ago. The White House believed that a better result would come if Obama didn't try to overheat the issue. Officials believed that people were worried about gas prices, not a spending squabble and that voters didn't hire Obama to be a legislator. Obama would go public when it meant the most. That was Tuesday. The president suddenly got vocal. He said Americans didn't want games but results. The pragmatic approach is what White House strategists believe will bring back the election-turning independents to Obama. "There are some things we can't control," he said. "We can't control earthquakes; we can't control tsunamis; we can't control uprisings on the other side of the world. What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the American people done." But it wasn't getting done, and his voice was not the only one setting the tone. "The president isn't leading," Boehner said Wednesday. "He didn't lead on last year's budget, and he clearly is not leading on this year's budget." Obama met with Boehner and Reid four times in the White House during the week. He still went to the Philadelphia area Wednesday to talk about energy. He looked comfortable, almost carefree, as he laughed with workers at a wind-turbine company about their families and their cars. But Washington had sucked him back in. By Friday, he canceled a trip to Indianapolis, scrapping the attention he wanted to give to clean energy. He scrapped a weekend getaway with his family to Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. While working to avoid a shutdown, Obama's team thought the White House would come out OK in the public's mind if it came to that. The thinking was that the president had presented a reasonable case of agreeing to spending cuts without going too far, and that people would be angry with Republicans if the government closed up partially over a policy disagreement about abortion. Only when the standoff grew most dire did it end. But the budget mess showed how government isn't supposed to operate. No matter who's to blame, all will be, including a president running for election this time from inside Washington's ways. Analysis: So much for change coming to Washington YAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {}; (function(){ var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { tracking: { _S: 85115982, pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a' }, content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", title: "Analysis%3A+So+much+for+change+coming+to+Washington+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "&h1=ap/20110409/ap_on_an/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis&h2=T&h3=2282", print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis\/print" }, config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } }; })(); Share retweet Email Print AP – President Barack Obama waves after visiting the Lincoln Memorial Saturday, April 9, 2011, in Washington. … Play Video Video:President Obama and John Boehner Seal Budget Deal ABC News Play Video Video:Raw Video: Obama visits Lincoln Memorial AP Play Video Video:GOP Address: Spending crisis still looms AP By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – Sat Apr 9, 7:57 pm ET WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised to change Washington's ways. Yet he's as caught up in them as ever. As the week began, Obama kicked off his re-election bid with a sunny video of people talking about their hopes and needs, the very image of life outside Washington politics. By week's end, Obama was mired in budget negotiations, canceling trips and scrambling to stave off a government shutdown that could only undermine the public's faith in his leadership. It was the messy business of governing, and how it's going to be in this long campaign for incumbent Obama. Beyond the vision for economic competitiveness he wants to talk about, Obama is chasing a second term while trying to make a deeply divided government work. He got bogged down in legislative tactics in his first two years, even when he won fights on health care and other issues. The goal now is to avoid all that. He can't. In this test of leadership, the White House says Obama wrangled the budget compromise he wanted, spending cuts he supported without shelving his priorities or accepting unacceptable policy changes. His administration portrayed it as an example of bipartisan cooperation of the highest stakes. Yet the government was on the brink of closing, and many people were wondering how that could happen, or why. This is change? The showdown was a reminder that for all a president's powers, there's much beyond control. Think Libya, Egypt, Japan's earthquake, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. In this case, the new House Republican majority, led by Speaker John Boehner, seized on a must-pass budget bill to give voice to frustrated voters and tea party conservatives who demanded spending cuts. It was brinksmanship mode again in the capital, where nothing gets done until the deadline. Sometimes not even then. In public, Obama tried to keep it at arm's length. "I shouldn't have to oversee a process in which Congress deals with last year's budget," Obama said as the time got short this week. In fact, he was up to his neck in it. Obama used a veto threat to make clear he would not accept the scope of GOP spending cuts. He said he would accept no more temporary extensions to keep the government running for a few weeks at a time unless there was a broader deal in hand. He kept saying leaders had to act like grown-ups. The White House said his strategy was to stay behind the scenes, work the phones and let his senior aides do the negotiating. That type of role provided an opening for Republicans to question his leadership. It also led to rumblings from frustrated lawmakers in his own party who wanted the president to openly attack the cuts Republicans wanted. The White House figured it would take those hits. It did. A Gallup poll in late March found declining numbers of people who said Obama was a strong and decisive leader: a little more than half of those polled, compared with 60 percent one year ago and 73 percent two years ago. The White House believed that a better result would come if Obama didn't try to overheat the issue. Officials believed that people were worried about gas prices, not a spending squabble and that voters didn't hire Obama to be a legislator. Obama would go public when it meant the most. That was Tuesday. The president suddenly got vocal. He said Americans didn't want games but results. The pragmatic approach is what White House strategists believe will bring back the election-turning independents to Obama. "There are some things we can't control," he said. "We can't control earthquakes; we can't control tsunamis; we can't control uprisings on the other side of the world. What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the American people done." But it wasn't getting done, and his voice was not the only one setting the tone. "The president isn't leading," Boehner said Wednesday. "He didn't lead on last year's budget, and he clearly is not leading on this year's budget." Obama met with Boehner and Reid four times in the White House during the week. He still went to the Philadelphia area Wednesday to talk about energy. He looked comfortable, almost carefree, as he laughed with workers at a wind-turbine company about their families and their cars. But Washington had sucked him back in. By Friday, he canceled a trip to Indianapolis, scrapping the attention he wanted to give to clean energy. He scrapped a weekend getaway with his family to Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. While working to avoid a shutdown, Obama's team thought the White House would come out OK in the public's mind if it came to that. The thinking was that the president had presented a reasonable case of agreeing to spending cuts without going too far, and that people would be angry with Republicans if the government closed up partially over a policy disagreement about abortion. Only when the standoff grew most dire did it end. But the budget mess showed how government isn't supposed to operate. No matter who's to blame, all will be, including a president running for election this time from inside Washington's ways. onfig: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } }; })(); Share retweet Email Print AP – President Obama poses for photographers in the Blue Room at the White House in Washington after he spoke … Play Video Video:Government Shutdown Averted: Obama Announces Deal ABC News Play Video Video:Government Shutdown Avoided ABC News Play Video Video:Planned Parenthood and the budget fight AP By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press – Sat Apr 9, 9:16 am ET WASHINGTON – A last-minute budget deal forged amid bluster and tough bargaining averted an embarrassing federal shutdown, cut billions in spending and provided the first major test of the divided government that voters ushered in five months ago. Working late into Friday night, congressional and White House negotiators finally agreed on a plan to pay for government operations through the end of September while trimming $38.5 billion in spending. Lawmakers then approved a measure to keep the government running for a few more days while the details of the new spending plan are written into legislation. Actual approval of the deal is expected in the middle of next week. "Americans of different beliefs came together again," President Barack Obama said from the White House Blue Room, a setting chosen to offer a clear view of the Washington Monument over his right shoulder. The agreement was negotiated by Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The administration was poised to shutter federal services, from national parks to tax-season help centers, and to send furlough notices to hundreds of thousands of federal workers. All sides insisted they wanted to avoid that outcome, which at times seemed inevitable. Shortly after midnight, White House budget director Jacob Lew issued a memo instructing departments and agencies to continue normal operations. Boehner said the deal came after "a lot of discussion and a long fight." He won an ovation from his rank and file, including the new tea party adherents whose victories last November shifted control of the House to the GOP. Reid declared the deal "historic." The deal marked the end of a three-way clash of wills. It also set the tone for coming confrontations over raising the government's borrowing limit, the spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 and long-term deficit reduction. In the end, all sides claimed victory. For Republicans, it was the sheer size of the spending cuts. For Obama and Reid, it was casting aside GOP policy initiatives that would have blocked environmental rules and changed a program that provides family planning services. Not all policy provisions were struck. One in the final deal would ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia. A program dear to Boehner that lets District of Columbia students use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools also survived. Republicans had included language to deny federal money to put in place Obama's year-old health care law. The deal only requires such a proposal to be voted on by the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it is certain to fall short of the necessary 60 votes. The deal came together after six grueling weeks as negotiators virtually dared each other to shut down the government. Boehner faced pressure from his GOP colleagues to stick as closely possible to the $61 billion in cuts and the conservative policy positions that the House had passed. At one point, Democrats announced negotiators had locked into a spending cut figure — $33 billion. Boehner pushed back and said there was no deal. During a meeting at the White House this past week, Boehner said he wanted $40 billion. The final number fell just short of that. In one dramatic moment, Obama called Boehner on Friday morning after learning that the outline of a deal they had reached with Reid in the Oval Office the night before was not reflected in the pre-dawn staff negotiations. The whole package was in peril. According to a senior administration official, Obama told Boehner that they were the two most consequential leaders and if they had any hope of keeping the government open, their bargain had to be honored and could not be altered by staff. The official described the scene on condition of anonymity to reveal behind-the-scenes negotiations. The accomplishment set the stage for even tougher confrontations. House Republicans intend to pass a 2012 budget in the coming week that calls for sweeping changes in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs and even deeper cuts in domestic programs to gain control over soaring deficits. In the Republican radio address, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., warned of a coming crisis. "Unless we act soon, government spending on health and retirement programs will crowd out spending on everything else, including national security. It will literally take every cent of every federal tax dollar just to pay for these programs," Ryan said Saturday. That debate could come soon. The Treasury has told Congress it must vote to raise the debt limit by summer. Republicans hope to use this issue to force Obama to accept long-term deficit-reduction measures. ____ Associated Press writers David Espo, Andrew Taylor, Erica Werner, Julie Pace and Ben Feller contributed to this story. ___ Online: Obama weekly address: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_re_us/storytext/us_spending_showdown/41020567/SIG=10s7oir5b/*http://www.whitehouse.gov/ GOP address: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_re_us/storytext/us_spending_showdown/41020567/SIG=11dd369tp/*http://www.youtube.com/republicanconference Analysis: So much for change coming to Washington YAHOO = window.YAHOO {}; YAHOO.Media = YAHOO.Media {}; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons = YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons {}; (function(){ var o_facebook_iframe_url="http://l.yimg.com/b/social_buttons/facebook-share-iframe.php?u={url}&t={title}"; YAHOO.Media.SocialButtons.conf = { tracking: { _S: 85115982, pkg: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", intl: 'us', lang: 'en-US', ct:'a' }, content: { url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis", title: "Analysis%3A+So+much+for+change+coming+to+Washington+-+Yahoo%21+News", mail_locale: "us", mail_property: "news", mail_meta: "&h1=ap/20110409/ap_on_an/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis&h2=T&h3=2282", print_url: "http:\/\/news.yahoo.com\/s\/ap\/20110409\/ap_on_an\/us_obama_a_test_of_leadership_analysis\/print" }, config: { facebook_iframe_url: o_facebook_iframe_url } }; })(); Share retweet Email Print AP – President Barack Obama waves after visiting the Lincoln Memorial Saturday, April 9, 2011, in Washington. … Play Video Video:President Obama and John Boehner Seal Budget Deal ABC News Play Video Video:Raw Video: Obama visits Lincoln Memorial AP Play Video Video:GOP Address: Spending crisis still looms AP By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – Sat Apr 9, 7:57 pm ET WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised to change Washington's ways. Yet he's as caught up in them as ever. As the week began, Obama kicked off his re-election bid with a sunny video of people talking about their hopes and needs, the very image of life outside Washington politics. By week's end, Obama was mired in budget negotiations, canceling trips and scrambling to stave off a government shutdown that could only undermine the public's faith in his leadership. It was the messy business of governing, and how it's going to be in this long campaign for incumbent Obama. Beyond the vision for economic competitiveness he wants to talk about, Obama is chasing a second term while trying to make a deeply divided government work. He got bogged down in legislative tactics in his first two years, even when he won fights on health care and other issues. The goal now is to avoid all that. He can't. In this test of leadership, the White House says Obama wrangled the budget compromise he wanted, spending cuts he supported without shelving his priorities or accepting unacceptable policy changes. His administration portrayed it as an example of bipartisan cooperation of the highest stakes. Yet the government was on the brink of closing, and many people were wondering how that could happen, or why. This is change? The showdown was a reminder that for all a president's powers, there's much beyond control. Think Libya, Egypt, Japan's earthquake, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. In this case, the new House Republican majority, led by Speaker John Boehner, seized on a must-pass budget bill to give voice to frustrated voters and tea party conservatives who demanded spending cuts. It was brinksmanship mode again in the capital, where nothing gets done until the deadline. Sometimes not even then. In public, Obama tried to keep it at arm's length. "I shouldn't have to oversee a process in which Congress deals with last year's budget," Obama said as the time got short this week. In fact, he was up to his neck in it. Obama used a veto threat to make clear he would not accept the scope of GOP spending cuts. He said he would accept no more temporary extensions to keep the government running for a few weeks at a time unless there was a broader deal in hand. He kept saying leaders had to act like grown-ups. The White House said his strategy was to stay behind the scenes, work the phones and let his senior aides do the negotiating. That type of role provided an opening for Republicans to question his leadership. It also led to rumblings from frustrated lawmakers in his own party who wanted the president to openly attack the cuts Republicans wanted. The White House figured it would take those hits. It did. A Gallup poll in late March found declining numbers of people who said Obama was a strong and decisive leader: a little more than half of those polled, compared with 60 percent one year ago and 73 percent two years ago. The White House believed that a better result would come if Obama didn't try to overheat the issue. Officials believed that people were worried about gas prices, not a spending squabble and that voters didn't hire Obama to be a legislator. Obama would go public when it meant the most. That was Tuesday. The president suddenly got vocal. He said Americans didn't want games but results. The pragmatic approach is what White House strategists believe will bring back the election-turning independents to Obama. "There are some things we can't control," he said. "We can't control earthquakes; we can't control tsunamis; we can't control uprisings on the other side of the world. What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the American people done." But it wasn't getting done, and his voice was not the only one setting the tone. "The president isn't leading," Boehner said Wednesday. "He didn't lead on last year's budget, and he clearly is not leading on this year's budget." Obama met with Boehner and Reid four times in the White House during the week. He still went to the Philadelphia area Wednesday to talk about energy. He looked comfortable, almost carefree, as he laughed with workers at a wind-turbine company about their families and their cars. But Washington had sucked him back in. By Friday, he canceled a trip to Indianapolis, scrapping the attention he wanted to give to clean energy. He scrapped a weekend getaway with his family to Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. While working to avoid a shutdown, Obama's team thought the White House would come out OK in the public's mind if it came to that. The thinking was that the president had presented a reasonable case of agreeing to spending cuts without going too far, and that people would be angry with Republicans if the government closed up partially over a policy disagreement about abortion. Only when the standoff grew most dire did it end. But the budget mess showed how government isn't supposed to operate. No matter who's to blame, all will be, including a president running for election this time from inside Washington's ways. HE DEALT WITH THE REALITY SUPERIMPOSED ON HIM SKILLFULLY IN THE BEST WAY HE COULD. PRAGMATISM SUPERCEDED THE THREAT OF A SUPERVENING IDEOLOGY COME WHAT MAY. WISDOM WAS GENERATED BY THE PREIDENT BUT NOT INVOLVEMENT IN A NO WIN TUG OF WAR OF OPPOSING INTERESTS BUT EXERTING A WINNING EDGE OF PRAGMATISM AND EXHORTATION WHICH GOT THE JOB DONE OF COMPROMISE WITH OUT THE EMOTIONALISM OF OBNOXIOUS IDEOLOGY WHEREIN SUPREME LEADERSHIP WITH NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE ODDS OF BEING IN CONTROL BUT NOT OBVIOUS CONTROL. IT IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS AND THE SEEMINGLY AD HOS RESPONSES OF THE PRESIDENT, YET IN CONTROL OF THE EVENTS.

THE LIGHT THAT NEVER GOES OUT,ETC

The writing below is the extent our secular mind can come to in making sense in a world that G-d has hid his face from and it would really impress upon our souls the conclusions that Nick has come to even if in peremptory fashion.a rekindled romantic light is an admission not to give in to a darkness "which comprehends not" the exile of our wanderings. It is the light hidden by the divine, a light too blazing for us to be blinded by, without a doubt.We live in an ellipsis of despair of our own subliminal devising,and hence of our own making, Nick Meador. http://www.supraterranean.com/2010/05/24/the-light-that-never-goes-out/# http://www.nickmeador.org/essays/ In short, this film made me miss feeling completely and utterly alive. I think the sensation is usually described as the loss of innocence, but somehow that doesn’t fit here. I don’t think innocence is necessarily lacking in the many adults (at least, other than by extrapolation to society as a whole) who have retreated from the outer world, safeguarded by their beliefs, their televisions, and the locks on their door. In the zombie-fied glare that dominates most of our so-called activity, I don’t see a gap of innocence; I see the slow victory of death, mashed together with untended guilt and regret. The other popular explanation most would offer is that this is what it means to “grow up.” I’m not convinced by that either, mostly because of the persisting juvenile state in which the human race has currently settled. * * * Certain visionary writers and spiritual leaders have suggested that it’s possible to reinvigorate that state of heightened awareness and persist in an appreciation for the privilege of life. (500) Days forced me, through pure emotional assault, to consider that prospect in my own life. Yes, the hardships are ridiculous, the world does seem to be getting worse instead of steadily progressing, and some days I’m glad I don’t have a loaded gun in my home. But there’s still love, there’s still music, babies still laugh, daffodils still sprout early each spring, and Orion still dons his diamond-studded belt each clear winter night. Romanticism doesn’t work as an ideology, a paradigm to understand all the workings of our civilization. Furthermore, our culture has lost most of its faith in the romantic pursuit, cordoning it off to mass-marketed movies, sitcoms and paperback books. Perhaps this is just my way of not ruling out something that felt so true earlier in my life. Though I can’t deny that it’s been present all along, albeit in a subdued, damaged form. And in a way all the strife, loathing and bloodshed seem to happen in response to our romantic ideals not manifesting themselves automatically. Maybe the romantic spirit is still a worthwhile aspect of Western culture (or of human nature) – maybe we’ve just lost track of it. It could be that the last decade was a painful but necessary transitioning period, a pessimistic winter extending from the nuclear winter that was never consummated by the Cold War. It seems every day there are signs of a greater awareness of humanity, fostered largely by the Internet and, to a lesser extent, by psychoactive drugs. People seem to have a sturdier conviction that we are here for good and there will be no exit, nor any sanctuary. Now our only task it to build the garden that’s been stuck in our collective dreams, the one that has always seemed to be our lost place of origin, not our imminent destination. That nagging sense of guilt we’ve felt for millennia – that is surmountable. Just as Tom longs to regain his love with Summer, we lament the loss of the summers of our youth, the season wholly representative of innocence. But like Tom did, we’ll inevitably see that the innocence was never gone, that its loss was an illusion – a temporary injury, perhaps one that encourages adaptivity in us. That insight is how Tom opens his heart to a woman named Autumn – a simple enough plot device, but one that’s all too relevant. After all, to see the purity of human life once summer has passed it to recognize that the purity is an inextricable part of what it means to be alive. * * * I’m still not convinced that any of this is preordained. I think of it more in terms of a natural progression. It’s the way of our evolution. If not, we would have blown each other up by now. What I’m suggesting is the possibility that Summer was right, that the outcome of their love was meant to be. Even the most secular of scientists could admit that natural processes happen in the world with total disregard as to our foresight or comprehension. What’s required is a willingness to open oneself up, time and time again, in the face of disaster and adversity. Then maybe our notion of the romantic will be transformed from a joke to an actual possibility, with all the layers of false beliefs stripped away to expose the core aspect of humanity that lies therein. That thought is best represented in the film by a classic Smiths’ song – the one playing on Tom’s headphones when the main characters first connect. Since it was written in 1986, the song has revived an endless number of shriveled hearts, thanks largely to Morrissey’s calming British croon and his repeated declaration: “There is a light that never goes out.” So here’s hoping it never does. Similar Posts: Film Review: ‘Up in the Air’ by Nick Meador The Science of Disasterology by Nick Meador A Reflection of One’s Genetic Architecture by Nick Meador A Supraterranean Manifesto by Nick Meador The Self-Directed Initiation of a Writer by Nick Meador

ULTERIOR MOTIVES WILL ULTIMATELY BECOME LISHMA THROUGH REPENTANCE

Today's Tanya Lesson Nissan 4, 5771 · April 8, 2011 Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 39 Listen Online MP3 Download וכשעוסק שלא לשמה ממש, לשום איזו פניה לכבוד עצמו However, when one engages in divine service explicitly not lishmah but for an ulterior motive of self-glorification, כגון להיות תלמיד חכם וכהאי גוונא as, for example, in order to become a scholar, and the like, אזי אותה פניה, שמצד הקליפה דנוגה, מתלבשת בתורתו then this motive, which is derived from kelipat nogah, clothes itself in his Torah study, והתורה היא בבחינת גלות בתוך הקליפה and the Torah studied for this motive is in a state of exile within the kelipah; לפי שעה, עד אשר יעשה תשובה, שמביאה רפואה לעולם but only temporarily, until he repents, since1 “Repentance brings healing to the world.” שבשובו אל ה׳, גם תורתו שבה עמו For when he returns to G‑d, his Torah returns with him from kelipah to holiness. ולכן אמרו רז״ל: לעולם יעסוק אדם וכו׳ שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה בודאי Therefore our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said,2 “One should always engage [in Torah and mitzvot, even shelo lishmah], for out of shelo lishmah he will certainly arrive at [study and observance] lishmah, שבודאי סופו לעשות תשובה, בגלגול זה או בגלגול אחר since it is certain that he will ultimately repent, whether in this incarnation or another, כי לא ידח ממנו נדח because3 “No one banished from Him by his sins will remain banished,” but will ultimately repent. The Alter Rebbe thus perceives two novel insights in the statement that one should always engage in Torah and mitzvot even shelo lishmah, etc. (a) Progress from shelo lishmah to lishmah is a certainty, not a possibility, since every sinner will ultimately repent (— and the Alter Rebbe therefore adds the word “certainly” to the quotation); (b) Not only will the person advance from the state of shelo lishmah to lishmah, but even the Torah that he studied shelo lishmah will be elevated, so that it attains the quality of lishmah; for when one repents and returns to G‑d, his Torah “returns” with him. The aforesaid applies to one who engages in divine service for an ulterior motive, strictly shelo lishmah. אך כשעושה סתם לא לשמה, ולא שלא לשמה, אין הדבר תלוי בתשובה But if one acts neutrally, neither lishmah nor shelo lishmah, then the matter is not contingent on repentance. אלא מיד שחוזר ולומד דבר זה לשמה, הרי גם מה שלמד בסתם מתחבר ומצטרף ללימוד זה, ופרחא לעילא Rather, as soon as he reviews the subject lishmah, then even that which he had studied neutrally soars on high, attaching itself to and joining his present study, מאחר שלא נתלבש בו עדיין שום קליפה דנוגה since no kelipat nogah had yet clothed itself in [his previous study]. Because his earlier study was not motivated by selfish reasons, the Torah studied is not in exile within the kelipah; it merely lacks the quality of lishmah. This fault is remedied by reviewing the subject lishmah. ולכן לעולם יעסוק אדם כו׳ Therefore, “A man should always occupy himself [with Torah...even shelo lishmah, for out of shelo lishmah he will come to lishmah”] — the Torah that he studied will itself be elevated to the level of lishmah. In this case, the lishmah “comes” automatically when one reviews his studies; it is not contingent on repentance (as it is in the case of Torah studied for personal motives). וכן הענין בתפלה שלא בכוונה, כמו שכתוב בזהר The same is true of prayer without kavanah, as discussed in the Zohar.4 When one recites the prayer once again, this time with kavanah, his earlier prayer ascends as well. Further in Tanya, the Alter Rebbe states that even if from all one’s prayers throughout the year, only one full prayer with kavanah can be assembled piecemeal (from one part of prayer said with kavanah one day, another part on another day, and so on), this one prayer is sufficient to elevate all the prayers of the entire year. For even where specific kavanah is lacking, the prayer is endowed with the comprehensive kavanah that one is praying to G‑d. FOOTNOTES 1. Cf. Yoma 86a. 2. Pesachim 50b. 3. Cf. II Shmuel 14:14. 4. The Rebbe notes: “It would seem that the reference is to Zohar II, 245b.” Today's Tanya Lesson Nissan 3, 5771 · April 7, 2011 Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 39 Listen Online MP3 Download The Alter Rebbe now proceeds to amplify his previous statement. והיינו אפילו אם אינו עוסק שלא לשמה ממש לשום איזו פניה, חס ושלום This inability of one’s divine service to ascend to the Sefirot applies not only where one’s motive for engaging in Torah and mitzvot is actually shelo lishmah (“not for its own sake”), i.e., for some ulterior motive, heaven forbid, in which case one is actually serving himself, not G‑d, and his service surely cannot ascend “to stand before G‑d.” אלא כמו שכתוב: ותהי יראתם אותי מצות אנשים מלומדה It also applies even if, as the verse describes it,1 “Their fear of Me was like commandments of men done by rote,” פירוש: מחמת הרגל שהורגל מקטנותו meaning [that one serves G‑d] out of a habit acquired in his youth,2 שהרגילו ולימדו אביו ורבו לירא את ה׳ ולעבדו having been trained and taught by his father and teacher to fear G‑d and to serve Him, ואינו עוסק לשמה ממש but he does not really do it for its own sake [lishmah]. כי לשמה ממש אי אפשר בלא התעוררות דחילו ורחימו הטבעיים, על כל פנים For it is impossible to serve G‑d truly lishmah without arousing one’s natural fear and love, at least, להוציאן מהסתר הלב אל הגילוי במוח ותעלומות לבו, על כל פנים by bringing them out from the concealment of the heart into revelation, as least in the mind and the latency of the heart. If one cannot arouse his natural love of G‑d to the point where it is actually felt in the heart, he must try, as discussed above, to arouse it at least so that it be felt in the conscious mind and in the substratum of the heart. Even this low-level arousal can produce a will and resolve to study the Torah and fulfill the mitzvot. Thus, the resulting divine service contains (at least to some degree) the force and kavanah of his natural love, since it was this love that created the resolve which he is now implementing. If, however, one does not produce even this minimal level of arousal, the love, although naturally found in his heart, has no bearing on his divine service, and he cannot, therefore, do this service lishmah (“for its own sake”). כי כמו שאין אדם עושה דבר בשביל חבירו למלאת רצונו, אלא אם כן אוהבו או ירא ממנו For just as one does not do something for his fellow, to carry out his [friend’s] will, unless he loves him or fears him, כך אי אפשר לעשות לשמו יתברך באמת למלאת רצונו לבד so, too, is it impossible to act truly for G‑d’s sake, solely in order to carry out His Will, בלי זכרון והתעוררות אהבתו ויראתו כלל, במוחו ומחשבתו ותעלומות לבו על כל פנים unless he remembers and arouses his love and fear of G‑d to some degree — in his mind, thought and the latent level of his heart, at least, if he cannot arouse these emotions openly in his heart. One who observes the mitzvot out of habit, however, lacking even this minimal arousal of love, cannot be described as serving G‑d for His sake even though his performance is impelled by no ulterior motive. וגם אהבה לבדה אינה נקראת בשם עבודה בלי יראה תתאה לפחות, שהיא מסותרת בלב כל ישראל, כמו שכתוב לקמן Furthermore, [the arousal of] love alone, without [the arousal of] at least the lower-level fear of G‑d hidden in every Jewish heart, is not called “service”, as will be explained later. Divine “service” connotes the relationship of a servant to his master, whom he serves chiefly out of fear, unlike a child, who carries out his father’s wishes mainly because he loves him. When one performs a mitzvah out of the love of G‑d alone, without fear of Him, he is indeed acting for G‑d’s sake — but he is not serving Him. FOOTNOTES 1. Yeshayahu 29:13. 2. The Rebbe explains that the Alter Rebbe uses the word “youth” judiciously. Were he referring to a habit acquired when one grew older (as described in ch. 15), then it might well be said that the lishmah at the outset of his service (before it became a habit) elevated his current service as well. This would be similar to assembling piecemeal — from all one’s prayers throughout the year — one complete prayer with kavanah, which would suffice to elevate all the prayers of the entire year. (See end of the present chapter.) The Rebbe queries, however, whether the lishmah of one’s youth is indeed similar to the aforementioned example of prayer, and whether this was indeed the Alter Rebbe’s reason for using the word “youth”. The Rebbe therefore offers an alternative reason. In the normal course of events parents train their children in the observance of Torah and mitzvot. This training (unlike an adult’s unthinking habituation to doing good deeds) is laudable, for the Torah commands us: “And you shall teach them to your children....”

THE PROGRAMMED HOUSEWIFE WM BURROUGHS THE NAKED LUNCH AND THE ROLE OF PROPAGANDA

http://www.realitysandwich.com/no_so_comfortable The following is excerpted from the upcoming book In an introduction to Propaganda, Mark Crispin Miller explains that the word "propaganda" only took on a negative connotation after WWI, because the British and American governments used it in heavy doses to maintain the appeal of Western democracy in opposition to the rising fascist and communist governments. The fact that we now think of propaganda as a despicable activity is "a paradoxical result of the war propagandists' winning enterprise: for the propagandists had themselves besmirched the word by using it always and only in dark reference to the enemy." (6) But originally it simply meant disseminating information in support of a cause. . This is the second excerpt to appear on Reality Sandwich. Read Part 1 here. The twentieth century was littered with warnings about the rise of technology and machinery in society. This became the general context for how we thought about "dehumanization," whether we were talking about manufacturing cars by robot instead of manpower, creating music with synthesizers instead of traditional instruments, or communicating by text message instead of talking face-to-face. But discussing whether these phenomena are "good" or "bad" won't be of much use without a proper understanding of how the human being has been "dehumanized." To find that, we need only look at the supposed epitome of post-modern life in the West, the realm we call suburbia. Suburbia is merely one arm of a machine -- one part of a bigger process, from which all other parts (e.g., pollution, deforestation, Third World plundering, etc.) are largely invisible. In that way, the suburbs are like a veil drawn over the broader reality of the world we live in, contributing much to our feeling of "unreality" over the past seventy years. This low-density living arrangement appeared as an alternative to the hustle and bustle of the urban environment. But really the suburbs are built on the same principles of mechanization that exist in the city. This machine runs on an addiction, which is to say that humanity is addicted to a process of dehumanization. And since these detrimental aspects are so hidden from view, suburbia poses one of the greatest threats to our survival as a species. We had hoped that this mechanized life would be better than the kind that came before it. Now we're forced to live with it no matter how we feel. After all, we have to make a living. And honestly, what would we all do if we didn't have jobs? We'd just be bored all day long, wasting our time watching TV...right? Really? Or are we dependent on a system that demands our servitude in exchange for another day of life, so we tell ourselves it's a necessary system in order to evade the straight jacket? The word "addiction" carries a connotation of narcotic drugs, but chemical addiction is only one type among many that proliferate today. Psychological addiction -- particularly the kind built on bio-survival anxiety -- may be an even more dangerous type, especially when it happens without the slightest bit of awareness on the part of the victim. Since all types of addiction share certain dynamics, it would be to our benefit to examine the case of "traditional" junkies. William S. Burroughs, a founding writer of the Beat Generation, developed an opiate addiction (starting with morphine) by at least 1944. (1) In an introduction to his 1959 novel Naked Lunch included in the "Restored Text" edition, Burroughs gives a brief rundown of the "junk" system -- the illicit opiate market, including heroin, morphine, and other drugs of that class -- to help explain his intentions for writing such a gritty book. Though he sticks to a discussion about drugs, one can't help but wonder if he intended it to be a microcosmic view of capitalism itself. Burroughs writes, "Junk is the mold of monopoly and possession," (2) and he marks three principles of the business: 1. Never give anything for nothing. 2. Never give more than you have to give (always catch the buyer hungry and always make him wait). 3. Always take everything back if you possibly can. (3) All it takes is a perceptive eye to see junky behavior in any shopping mall in America. We could even call the shopping mall the dominant paradigm of suburbia, where people try to buy a sense of personal worth -- a temporary "fix" that only lasts so long. The utmost example is likely that gross display of consumer frenzy we call Black Friday, when people trample each other to get the best holiday deals after eating obscene amounts of food. More generally, a good shopping find momentarily cures that ailment of feeling incomplete or unclean. One gains a sense of pride over a smart purchase, whether it's a stereo system on sale, groceries discounted with coupon clippings, or even second-hand clothes at the local thrift store. While the popular image of an "addict" or "junky" prevailing since the 1950s has been one of a wraith-like creature wasting away physically, the factors behind junk really correspond to a more universal economic system. Because of that, Burroughs seems to have predicted our mega-mart culture of endless price cuts and absent salesmen. "Junk is the ideal product... the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy... The junk merchant does not sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client." (4) Of course, Burroughs didn't actually predict today's consumer culture in the industrialized Western world, for this system was already well established by the time he wrote his novels. Edward Bernays, widely considered the father of the public relations industry, explains these exact sort of tactics in his 1928 book Propaganda. Before World War I, most advertising carried a tone of marketplace bartering in which the marketing team used a fairly direct approach to highlight the benefits of a product or service. Bernays's "new propaganda," on the other hand, employed knowledge of group psychology and the hidden workings of society to navigate a more sneaky route to the customer's wallet. "Instead of assaulting sales resistance by direct attack," writes Bernays, the public relations counsel "is interested in removing sales resistance. He creates circumstances which will swing emotional currents so as to make for purchaser demand." (5) In an introduction to Propaganda, Mark Crispin Miller explains that the word "propaganda" only took on a negative connotation after WWI, because the British and American governments used it in heavy doses to maintain the appeal of Western democracy in opposition to the rising fascist and communist governments. The fact that we now think of propaganda as a despicable activity is "a paradoxical result of the war propagandists' winning enterprise: for the propagandists had themselves besmirched the word by using it always and only in dark reference to the enemy." (6) But originally it simply meant disseminating information in support of a cause.

Miller also points out that Bernays primarily lists examples from his own propaganda work for clients, while using passive verbs to bypass the reader's suspicion. To get the public to buy more bacon, Bernays hired doctors to promote it because of how dependent people are on the advice of physicians. For a piano manufacturer client, he suggested working with the real estate industry to put a music room in newly built homes. The public relations counsel "appeals perhaps to the home instinct which is fundamental. He will endeavor to develop public acceptance of the idea of a music room in the home. ...lifting the idea of the music room to a place in the public consciousness which it did not have before. [...] It will come to [the homeowner] as his own idea." (7) Bernays was busy serving major clients throughout the 1920s, when companies such as General Motors, Procter & Gamble, John D. Rockefeller, and General Electric paid propagandists enormous sums of money to help turn public opinion in their favor. The "new propagandists" had a few advantages. One was that, as Bernays writes, "Men are rarely aware of the real reasons which motivate their actions." (8) At the same time, people believe that they know the reasons for certain -- the result of a self-deception faculty in the human psyche. Another advantage was that the new propaganda industry had worked the psychological concepts of Bernays's uncle, Sigmund Freud, into its arsenal. "It is chiefly the psychologists of the school of Freud who have pointed out that many of man's thoughts and actions are compensatory substitutes for desires which [he] has been obliged to suppress." (9) Insights into group psychology proved the most rewarding for the fledgling public relations industry. "Trotter and Le Bon concluded that the group does not think in the strict sense of the word. In place of thoughts it has impulses, habits, and emotions. In making up its mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader." (10) The universality of such a phenomenon suggests that individual human beings tend to automatically surrender their own ability to make decisions -- what we'd call a rational thought process or problem-solving faculty -- and instead default to whatever leadership is in place. Though the model was still relatively vague, Bernays understood that a group reacts most to clichés, symbols, and formulaic phrases. It didn't take long to turn this knowledge into standard practice. "So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?" (11) Bernays had been influenced by the ideas of journalist Walter Lippmann, especially the notion that "the manufacture of consent" was required to keep a modern democracy in functioning order. (12) The overarching point of Bernays's story is that, for almost 100 years now, an entire industry has devoted its energies to turning the consumers of a capitalist "democracy" into addicts who feel a psychological compulsion to spend money on products and services, regardless of actual necessity. Of course, because of the business interest at stake, it would have been dangerous for the public to know anything about these tactics. Propaganda formed a symbiotic relationship with any financially motivated organization that depended on public opinion, be it government, corporation, or church. What Bernays called "new propaganda" has now split into the roles of public relations, advertising, marketing -- even, to a certain extent, sociology and legislative lobbying. So it's no stretch to say that psychological awareness among the public would have been a very direct threat to all parties involved. As a result, students today are lucky if they get to take a single psychology class in high school or college -- and even if they do, it's an almost useless kind of psychology with no real-life application whatsoever. That's evidenced by the fact that allmost people know of Freud is the "id, ego, superego" model of the human psyche -- or his "oral, anal, and genital stages" of development. On top of that, Freud's followers were a particularly dogmatic bunch who focused almost entirely on repression caused by denied sexual impulses, lowering the general appeal of psychoanalysis. Furthermore, most people haven't even heard of Carl Jung or other important psychologists. Luckily books preserve the knowledge that we require to understand our predicament. Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique appeared in 1963, serving as a major contribution to the civil rights movement that helped define the decade. Friedan noticed a strange paradox in which American women -- allowed for the first time in world history to vote, own property, attend college, pursue a career, and generally develop as full adult individuals -- were continually being pushed into a very narrow role, both in the family and in society as a whole. That role was essentially defined by a commercialized image. Friedan asks, "Does the image by which modern American women live also leave something out...? [...] This image -- created by the women's magazines, by advertisements, television, movies, novels, columns and books by experts on marriage and the family, child psychology, sexual adjustment and by the popularizers of sociology and psychoanalysis -- shapes women's lives today and mirrors their dreams. It may give a clue to the problem that has no name, as a dream gives a clue to a wish unnamed by the dreamer." (13) Friedan notes that the consumer culture was arranged in a way that not only made it difficult for a woman to achieve her true potential; it also made it very easy for her to drop out of college, marry a guy with a degree and job lined up, and start making babies. Yet at a time when everyone should have been showing concern about such matters, Friedan saw this as a nearly unspeakable topic. Friedan wonders, "Why is it never said that the really crucial function, the really important role that women serve as housewives is to buy more things for the house. ...the perpetuation of housewifery, the growth of the feminine mystique, makes sense (and dollars) when one realizes that women are the chief customers of American business." (14)

While Friedan sensed that "powerful forces" were engineering the mystique, she tried to remain pragmatic as evidence piled up suggesting some concerted capitalist scheme against women everywhere. She imagines corporate executives and psychologists having a secret meeting and plotting to "stop this dangerous movement of women out of the home," but then writes it off as an impossible fiction. (15) Her opinion: "It was not an economic conspiracy directed against women. It was a byproduct of our general confusion lately of means with ends; just something that happened to women when the business of producing and selling and investing in business for profit...began to be confused with the purpose of our nation, the end of life itself." (16) Friedan was correct about the misplaced priorities of consumerism, but to say that no secret meetings ever occurred might be too cautious. After all, in her imagined scenario she lists some of the very companies that Miller mentions in the introduction to Propaganda -- General Electric and General Motors in particular -- who actually had been running campaigns for decades, not only to turn people into sedated consumers, but into ones with preferences that fit their own specific business model. Since Friedan never once refers to Bernays, it seems that she wasn't fully aware of the historical prominence of the propaganda field. However, she did visit Dr. Ernest Dichter at the Institute for Motivational Research, her account of which practically contradicts what she said before about the unlikelihood of a conspiracy. She says Dichter, a man in possession of 300,000 studies of individual consumers, was "paid approximately a million dollars a year for his professional services in manipulating the emotions of American women to serve the needs of business." (17) (At the time of my writing, that would be the equivalent of slightly more than $7 million.) (18)

DICHTER AND THE WOOING OF THE AMERICAN HOUSEWIFE BY MANIPULATION INTO THE ADDICTION/SICKNESS OF BEING SUPER CONSUMERS

Dichter built his business on the finding that American women influenced about three-quarters of decisions on how to spend household money. His job was to maintain that figure by creating the circumstances for women to feel fulfilled in their position as housewives, whether it was a part- or full-time role. While he didn't actively campaign against their efforts to seek work outside the home, he could heavily sway their behavior inside of it. Primarily this was done by making home upkeep activities dependent on buyable goods. "Properly manipulated...American housewives can be given the sense of identity, purpose, creativity, the self-realization, even the sexual joy they lack -- by the buying of things." (19) As one of Dichter's reports says, "The feeling of creativeness...is an outlet for the liberated talents, the better taste, the freer imagination, the greater initiative of the modern woman. It permits her to use at home all the faculties that she would display in an outside career." (20) At the time, the desire for liberation in life and work was flaring up among all groups who had been historically oppressed. So a correlative goal was to make the housewife feel like a professional, as opposed to a servant in her own home. This propaganda of the 1940s and ‘50s was really hinged on the need for security -- or, to put it another way, on the anxiety aroused when a feeling of security was not obtainable. The manipulators took this knowledge and directed their efforts at younger and younger cohorts. "It was discovered that young wives, who had only been to high school and had never worked, were more 'insecure,' less independent, easier to sell. These young people could be told that, by buying the right things, they could achieve middle-class status, without work or study. [...] The main point now was to convince the teenagers that 'happiness through things' is no longer the prerogative of the rich or the talented; it can be enjoyed by all, if they learn ‘the right way,' the way the others do it, if they learn the embarrassment of being different." (21) And the methods of reaching these young women were seemingly extracted right out of Bernays's handbook, with group leaders, school faculty (teachers and guidance counselors), and TV advertisements playing huge roles. "This is the big market of the future," as Dichter says, "and word-of-mouth advertising, along with group pressure, is not only the most potent influence but in the absence of tradition, a most necessary one." (22)

THEMES OF THE ESSAY SUMMARIZED

While it may seem like an outdated example, the methods used to manipulate the post-war housewife are now employed to control every demographic. Television had pervaded America by the time Friedan published her book, making it possible to sway the perceptions of millions by appealing to the same "group leader" vulnerability. Soon it was possible for everyone to "learn the embarrassment of being different" by the time they got to kindergarten. The most effective tactics are the most invasive -- that is, they dig deepest into one's bio-survival anxiety and territorial ego drive, but without the target noticing. The propaganda comes gift wrapped in a warm, fuzzy package -- and only later do we discover the anthrax inside. This public relations nightmare is a cannibalistic system that's eating away at our dreams of an egalitarian society, piling shit on top of shit on top of shit, selling souls to sell more souls to sell more souls. The difference between Friedan's time and our own is that the middle class is now dissolving. But given that the suburban middle class -- what Friedan called the "Comfortable Concentration Camp" -- depended on the arrested development of millions of human beings, that might not be such a bad thing. Every new generation raised in this environment experiences a more "unreal" version of human life. Friedan notes this trend in her book: "I do not think it is a coincidence that the increasing passivity -- and dreamlike unreality -- of today's children has become so widespread in the same years that the feminine mystique encouraged the great majority of American women...to give up their own dreams, and even their own education, to live through their children." (23) This statement basically predicts the coming of my own ADD generation. We can't figure out how to turn off the machine, so it's only natural to want to flee. And since there's not much possibility of an outward escape, we're fleeing inward -- into our own subconscious minds. Bernays's progeny started catching up with that in the 1980s, prescribing Ritalin and, later, Adderall, in an increasingly desperate effort to keep us plugged into their machine. When we look at the consumer system around us, it's tempting to think that it was once a healthy system, and that it suddenly got out of hand. But in reality that consumer system was based on manipulative psychological tactics from the very beginning -- equivalent to building a socio-economic system out of a "junk" addiction. As we evolve, we'll have to figure out how to outlaw the sort of propaganda activities that turn us into dehumanized consumer-automatons -- that is, if we want to remain human at all.

NOTES: 1. Charters, Ann. Kerouac: A Biography. 1973. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987. pp. 55-56. 2. Burroughs, William S. "Deposition: Testimony Concerning a Sickness." Naked Lunch: The Restored Text. New York: Grove Press, 2004. pp. 199-206. 3. Burroughs, W.S. Ibid. 4. Burroughs, W.S. Ibid. 5. Bernays, Edward. Propaganda. 1928. New York: Ig Publishing, 2005. p. 77. 6. Bernays, E. Ibid. From the introduction by Mark Crispin Miller. p. 14. 7. Bernays, E. Ibid. pp. 77-78. 8. Bernays, E. Ibid. p. 74. 9. Bernays, E. Ibid. p. 75. 10. Bernays, E. Ibid. p. 73. 11. Bernays, E. Ibid. p. 71. 12. Bernays, E. Ibid. From the introduction by Mark Crispin Miller. p. 13. 13. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. 1963. New York: Dell Publishing, 1984. p. 34. 14. Friedan, B. Ibid. pp. 206-207. Italics hers. 15. Friedan, B. Ibid. p. 207. 16. Friedan, B. Ibid. p. 207. 17. Friedan, B. Ibid. p. 208. I found the names of both Dichter and the institute in the footnote on p. 429. 18. "CPI Inflation Calculator." Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed on 2/21/2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm 19. Friedan, B. Ibid. p. 208. 20. Friedan, B. Ibid. p. 214. Italics from original report. 21. Friedan, B. Ibid. p. 219. 22. Friedan, B. Ibid. pp. 220-221. 23. Friedan, B. Ibid. p. 288