but (and there's always a BUT - depending on whose diatribe you're reading at the time, it might be [and I'm making these up as absurd examples, they're not real quotes]) ...

nobody wants to change their underwear.
nobody wants to make change for a dollar.
nobody wants to change their OWN life.
nobody wants to be hated for it.
nobody wants to do it for nothing.
nobody wants to start with their own backyard.
nobody wants to give up their life to do it.
nobody knows how.

There are tons of organizations out there (http://www.zaadz.com and http://www.one.org, to just name two) whose tag line incorporates something about "changing the world".

And there are hundreds of thousands of bright-eyed, bushy-tailed enthusiasts that flock to these kinds of organizations with big ideas and high hopes. And they spout things like "how about getting children enthusiastic about global change" or "why don't we win over the 'Heartland'" or "let's think globally, and act locally". I'll admit, I am one of those people who look for organizations and people with big ideas. But I wonder ... as I've often wondered when I see the Jehovah's Witnesses somberly traipsing up the block, or see the clean scrubbed Mormon bicycle evangelists or street corner Nation of Islam boys hawking their particular brand of enlightenment. What I wonder is this: when you say "save the children," whose children are you talking about? The children of famine-ravaged Ethopia or war-torn Bosnia or overpopulated India? Why is it that so many "missionaries" tend to look elsewhere for somebody to save? There are probably kids in your own neighborhood that are under- or mis-educated, malnourished, disenfranchised. Hell, they might even be relatives. What about them? Why are there so few missions to the trailer parks, to the coal mines, to the squatter villages right here in town "on the wrong side of the tracks"? What about those "black sheep" cousins, or your own parents? Try convincing a set-in-their-ways, old-fashioned, conservative, Bible-thumping auntie that Buddhism is a viable option for some. That'll keep you busy for a spell.

In other words, if you can't convince people who KNOW you, because you're worried they'll resent you, or cut you out of their wills, or not let their children play with yours, or whatever --- why do you expect a different reaction from someone whose space you've invaded without the courtesy of LIVING among them?

And check your information. Figure out that it's not fossil fuel dependency to run our cars that's the problem. It's the dependence on CORN that's the problem. It takes less petroleum to fill all our tanks than to produce the synthetic nitrogren required to fertilize the corn crop that produces not only ethanol, but 45% of what fills the supermarket shelves (and in some cases, is used to construct the shelves themselves). There's not enough naturally occurring free nitrogen on root bulbs and produced by lightning to fertilize the food for my FAMILY for a year. Without synthetic nitrogen, there would need to be a significant population reduction. EVERYWHERE. At the very least, there would need to be an elimination of 95% of all candy and soft drinks (most of which rely upon corn syrup and corn sweetener). To get that nitrogen requires burning fossil fuels. So biofuels are a double-edged sword, aren't they?

How to change the world, then? It isn't by teaching, or educating, or spending, or practicing random kindnesses, or sending healing energy around the globe. It's not conversion by the sword by any other name (and that sword need not be made of steel). It's not, as I used to glibly jibe, changing the way people think by making sure they are thinking to begin with.

What is it, then? Some humungous collaboration of do-gooding, glad-handing, happy-shiny smiling know-it-alls changing the lives of those underprivileged and unwashed masses surrounding them?

No. I think it starts a little differently. I think it starts by doing what you think is right and ethical for those whose lives you already touch. And by remembering that every system of ethics has as its root principle "Thou before I". In other words, to be ethical, you have to consider the other person's situation as equally valid and important as your own. And you have to think about the impact of your actions on others before counting the benefit to yourself.

Such small things. Things that don't get mentioned on the Philanthropic Channel. Or get you plaques or medals or knighthoods. Certainly not things that anybody is going to thank you for.

At least, not yet. Until you've changed the world.

There's a hole in the levee where my city used to be
and there's talk of the future in the papers, on TV
but the truth of the matter is quite obvious to see
nothing's gonna be the way it used to be

Some still say that the water washed away some evil sin
and that God cleansed the palette so that He could start again
but the truth of the matter is not hard to comprehend:
it's the end of our longing to pretend.

No one should ever be so poor that they should need rely
on folks that really don't care if they live or if they die.
Whatever dream we started on has shriveled up and dried
still waiting for the haves to all decide
the cost to let New Orleans die.

There's a hole in the levee and the money's pouring out
into the Gulf of Mexico and points much further south
while those with lots of nothing figure what to live without
and watch the nonsense that comes from
the politicians' mouths

Some blame the federal government while others blame the state;
still others, the Big Easy's leaders; a few, they blame fate.
The truth, though, is quite simple: far too little, far too late,
and denying it is to prevaricate.

No one should ever be so poor that they should need rely
on folks that really don't care if they live or if they die.
Whatever dream we started on has shriveled up and dried
still waiting for the haves to all decide
the cost to let New Orleans die.

From this, let little people take a lesson they can use.
you think we're all together, well, just watch the evening news:
you're out there in the undertown, and others get to choose;
remember, when the chips are down
the house will let you lose.

04 APR 2006

Dear America:

The day after Katrina passed by New Orleans
and the reporters at the Royal Sonesta Hotel
on Bourbon Street,
in the goddamn sacred French Quarter,
were saying "New Orleans has been spared"
I knew it would come to this.

The day I heard the levees at the river and the lake
had been breeched, leaving New Orleans East
and the Ninth Ward
underwater,
I knew there would a Convention Center horrowshow,
the elderly and infirm,
the HIV-positive
and countless streams of self-medicated
mentally disturbed
wading through miles of toxic shit
and the garbage from under the streets
of the Quarter.

I knew it would become a race issue
for people outside New Orleans.
People who don't know what it's like
to live in a mixed white black neighborhood
that is also middle class.

People who aren't privileged to understand,
just by driving down three blocks on St. Bernard Avenue, say,
that there are only four kinds of people in this world:
rich people,
poor people,
people pretending to be rich
and people pretending not to be poor.

In other words:
the haves,
the have-nots,
and the have-credits.

What good is sending people back to Covington,
to Metairie, to Harahan ... to the freaking CBD?

Without the Ninth Ward, without the poverty that
birthed jazz, without those
underprivileged, undereducated, underemployed,
underwater souls
who would care about the City that Care Forgot?

The great boot of Louisiana is now a dirty sock.
With it's great expanse of money-making Democratic blue
washed out
and only the tired elastic red left at the top.

I'm tired. And I've lost my home.

And Mayor Nagin,
nothing you can do can bring it back.
'Cause unless it's exactly the same,
it won't be New Orleans.

26 SEP 2005

When right-wing zealots take control and change the living here,
in bonfires roasting unfit souls with smoke that never clears,
to forgo the auto-da-fe I'm sure will be required,
where can a person choose to move and still remain inspired?

Some place where there's still rule of law, dividing church and state,
without a bloody history or spineless legislate;
where there is culture, and some sense of personal dignity;
where healthcare is informed, supplied, holistic and sanitary.

Some place that doesn't want to be a member of G8,
that doesn't stand a chance to share a superpower's fate;
where military spending isn't more than art, or schools,
and where technology is not the end, but means and tool.

Where nature is important, and where reading is still done,
and entertainment does not mean six kinds of VH1;
where extremists of any kind are not staging a coup,
and perhaps things could be improved, but in the main, they'll do.

An anti-theocratic place, where tolerance is taught,
and peaceful ways to solve dilemmas at all costs are sought;
where freedom of religion means freedom from such things, too,
and how another leads their life has no bearing on you.

Of course, the weather must be good, and winter's not too cold;
because I like the beach and summer now that I'm grown old.
Fruit that's fresh, and leafy greens from gardens close to home,
good food, good wine, good bread either in public or alone.

And property --- the right to own it, at a modest price;
these things are the essentials. But some others would be nice:
like making sure America remains the kind of land
where flags are fire-proofed, not by law, but by for what they stand.

19 JUL 2005

Do you really want theocracy,
to thin or blur the line
between what makes us get along,
and what God had in mind?

That means you'll have to tell the truth,
and never get divorced;
make no income from interest
(that's usury, of course);
respect your elders, even when
they say you're full of shit;
give not your coat, but your shirt, too
when the homeless ask for it;
never bear false witness,
which means you'll have to work hard
to learn what really are the facts
beyond your own back yard;
and stealing? Each and every kind
you'll have to forthwith cease;
that means the end of espionage,
sly dealings, and palm grease.

You'll need to give up judging sheep
who come from other folds,
and leave off all interpreting;
just do what you are told,
not by some politician, preacher,
or pope, full of zeal,
but by a judge beyond your ken
who does not hear appeals.

17 JUL 2005

MoveOn.org has got a petition drive going that's worth looking in to. I did, and here's the message I sent to my Congresspeople:

Checks and balances means when one branch of the government is conservative, another is by necessity liberal. When Republicans control the executive and legislative branches of government, by necessity they MUST NOT be allowed free reign to appoint the members of the judicial branch. They should KNOW this, if they are in fact believers in democracy. If they are NOT supporters of democracy, they have no business running this country.

It does not matter whether you agree with the conservative or liberal, Republican or Democratic platforms. That is NOT the issue. It is not about who WINS. It is about maintaining DEMOCRACY, about sustaining bipartisanship, about encouraging dissent, about preserving the checks and balances which are so imperative to safeguarding the Constitution. The Constitution is at stake here, NOT some party line. And without the Constitution to back it up, without people who are willing to go to the mat, to fight to ensure that it is NOT freely interpreted except in the interest of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans, there is not much of a democracy to speak of. And worse off, there are a lot of people drawing paychecks for protecting that democracy that aren't doing their jobs.

The Senate must oppose the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster, and preserve the checks and balances that have kept our courts fair and independent for centuries.

The fascist right ... the commie left ... the accusations fly,
with neither side, in truth, much worried 'bout the little guy;
they do not represent him, even though that's what they claim,
'cause behind all their rhetoric, they're pretty much the same:

Both sides make heartfelt speeches to a captive audience,
who, face it, have eschewed most logic and good common sense,
in thinking that these politicos, who speak of some gesalt,
have anything in mind but finding someone else at fault.

Just once, I'd like to hear a politician state the truth:
that they'd said anything to get you in their voting booth,
and that the numbers they rely on are in fact just lies,
manipulated to reduce their opponents to size.

And further, I'd like congressmen, and senators, to boot,
instead of claiming justice is their sole end of pursuit,
to simply say they're sorry, but the way that things are now,
free speech, fair play, and honesty they simply can't allow.

At least then I know where I stand, as if I couldn't guess:
a once-great country trying to deny it is a mess;
a people proud of learning less and less each day in schools,
whose main interest is money-making, educated fools;

a flag that isn't fireproof, because it does not wave
for truth, justice and liberty for all, free man and slave;
instead, by some selective wind, it chooses its flagpoles
by special interests, narrow vision, and pretense at soul.

I wonder, as I hear them speak on C-SPAN or the news,
if anyone who is in office really knows my shoes.
They do not know my first name, that I'm sure of. After all,
it's never them in person making their fund-raising calls.

Bipartisan, bischmartisan; blue, red, and purple hues;
Republican or Democrat; evangelist or Jew ---
why don't they get it? Why not look beyond such simple lines,
and think what's best for the whole country, while there is still time?

12 MAY 2005

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
House Minority Leader

Dear Congresswoman Pelosi:

I recently received a mailer from you that included the following text:

>> Dear Friend ... why don't you take the enclosed George W. Bush Disapproval Poll and use it to me me how high (I doubt it) or low President Bush ranks with you. It's your chance to tell me exactly what you think of the 43rd President. If you give George W. Bush grades of A or B, then I have bad news: First, you are a Republican. Second, you are going to be on the losing side of history. BUT ... if you give George W. Bush C's, D's or F's then you are a true-blue Democrat and I urge you to join us in our fight to hold the line against President Bush's radical agenda and begin laying the groundwork for victory in the 2006 mid-term election ... <<

I would like to offer you my thoughts on this effort of the National Democratic Committee.

I am in fact what most would consider to be a "true-blue Democrat". I don't think there's any doubt of that. For 22 years I have voted a straight Democratic ticket. However, I find myself having a great deal of trouble believing what you say, despite my inclination to give more credence to junk-mailers who at least pretend to be on my political wavelength. Your message sent up a number of warning flags, I must admit.

To start with, "History" is written not by those who are right, but by those who are in power. What determines the "losing" side of history is what the "winners" determine the opposite side from their own. At this juncture, I'm not too sure that the "losing" side is going to be written in a manner pleasing to "Democrats" for quite some time. Why? Because the problem is not just that George W. Bush is doing wrong. Although I agree there is a lot of wrong-doing going on.

The problem, as I see it, is that giving George W. Bush a "failing" grade on this poll doesn't make me a true-blue Democrat, as much as it makes me a complete and total IDIOT. Because I appear to be supporting a political party that has no vision of their own, that has not been too effective in countering these horrible policies, that is afraid of being called un-American for fighting a fascist-leaning, right-wing, neo-conservative agenda. A party that has no plan of their own, except to tell me what's wrong with the other guy's plan. That has in essence conceded that morality, right, truth, justice and the American Way are the property of the Republicans, and has contented itself with whining and bitching that those damn "righty-tighties" are just misusing those properties differently than a Democrat might misuse them if given the opportunity. What line exactly are "we Democrats" holding? And what good does it do to hold some imaginary line when there are so few of our so-called representatives that are willing to stand up for what they claim their constituents stand for? Further, for all these issues where George W. and his radicalized cronies have forced their way upon the unsuspecting American public, where have the Democrats been? In short, what good are they?

I'd like to see some groundwork, Congresswoman Pelosi. As you state in your letter, even though the right-wing doesn't have one, I'd like to see a platform that unites, instead of divides. I'd like to see the Democratic Party come up with such a platform, and stick with it. I don't think anyone can claim sole right to morality and doing the right thing. And surely, the 80% of people in the USA that claim some affiliation with Christianity (and the other 20% that follow equally valid and morally-based religions, whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Sikh, Shinto, Zoroastrian, Druid, Bah'ai or even Atheism) can't be all Republicans. And Republicans aren't the only ones capable of girding themselves with the mantle of the self-righteous ... what about a little Democratic righteous indignation now and again? I can't think of a better time that right now.

To be frank with you, Congresswoman, I'm disgusted with the political process. I'm disgusted with voting Democrat just because it seems like the lesser of two evils. I'd like to be able to vote, with a clear conscience and sense of accomplishment, for something worth believing in. Something that the big party Democrats are willing to state, in public, they believe in, too. Something, and a serious set of someones who are not straw dogs, but actual contenders. But remember, there's not much point in picking who we're going to travel with until we've figured out where we are going. The journey dictates the skills we'll need, and not visa versa. So please, give us a something before trying to foist off another glad-handing someone in a suit more expensive than the average Democrat's income can afford.

Just a suggestion: if you want a Presidential candidate to be elected "by the people", you've got to be "for the people", and whoever you put on that ballot had better be "of the people". Not Democratic leadership people. Not Beltway Brotherhood people. Not "because anything is better than a Republican" people.

Don't worry. I'll keep voting Democrat until I die. However, I'm sick of knowing that underneath the surface, regardless of which candidate I choose, the bottom line doesn't change for me, nor for millions of others who seemingly cast their votes in a seeming maelstrom of futility. After that, watching the few Democratic candidates who DO make it into office only wring their hands and cry, "oh, those neo-cons are ruining the country" is decidedly anti-climactic. And discouraging.

The bottom line is that George W. Bush's F looks like an A to most people, and that's why they voted for him. That occurred only because in order to give ourselves any kind of excuse for what either party is doing, the American People have been forced to grade on a curve. And the sad truth is that neither the Republicans or Democrats deserve to pass the class.

Feel free to use any part of this letter you wish to improve the Democratic Party.

Sincerely,

John Litzenberg
New Orleans, LA

So we've inaugurated him
the Jingo Kid, ol' Cocaine Slim
to serve again as our great chief.

Despite the obvious belief
of many folks that he's the spawn
of Satan. Soon he will be gone,
and who will fill his king-sized shoes?

That we're in sad shape is no news,
and four years hence things will be worse
fed evil pap from this wet nurse.

I wonder, though, if just for spite
the constant scheming God-filled right
won't train a Democrat or two
to follow on the Shrub, Part Deux;
and hoist some harmless seeming Left
upon a nation, now bereft,
its sense of truth and honor gone,
its holy cause, freedom, a pawn
used as a ploy to sell your way
on next inauguration day.

I'll end with this, and make it brief:
next time you pick our chosen chief
be sure to check at your hairline
for three tattooed inverted nines.

22 JAN 2005

Neoconservatism is not a threat to the free-living, free-wheeling, bleeding heart liberal philosophy of us drug-crazed, sex-minded hippie freaks.

No, despite its definition as "an approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)", it is not the left wing, per se, that is the target of neoconservatism. It's target is not to return us to before 1960, but before 1760. After all, the traditional point of view in politics or theology is not democracy. It is monolithic, totalitarian and unquestioned rule. It is fascism, painted with a nostalgic brush called "the good old days" --- those days before liberal science gave us the conveniences that gave us the free time to sit around and reminisce without having to actually experience the minor setbacks of medicine, culture, diversity, equality, and economic well-being that were in those halycon days available only to the extremely wealthy, or extremely lucky (and luck would be defined as in the right place to benefit from the temporary whims of the current dictatorship). It is belittling, beheading, excommunicating, exiling, or executing any who disagree with your point of view. And it is the point of view of rich, white men --- who have convinced, somehow, the remaining 95% of the population of this country (that's right, 95% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the people, remember, and those aren't people living in Harlem, or Watts, or Chinatown) that this is the agenda upon which America should settle. The course which we must steer by. Our mandate.

Let me get this straight --- our mandate, as a democratic nation, is to abandon democracy, much as the Anasazi abandoned New Mexico.

Under a banner of religious self-righteousness, jingoistic nationalism, military might and xenophobic paranoia --- particularly regarding people of Semitic origin and language.

Careful with that swastika, Eugene.

You will not successfully barter the illusions of freedom and liberty for the illusions of control and safety on my watch. The former may be undisciplined, untamed and only nebulously defined, but even in that raw, feral state they are worth ten times the most alluring manifestations of the latter.

That's what I call a Neo-Liberal agenda. Fixing the broken left wing so the eagle doesn't have to spin in circles and wear itself out trying to leave the ground.

Or to put it more bluntly, you can have the Constitution to wipe your ass with when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

The right to bear arms is NOT the same as the right to own or use a gun.
Schools and hospitals should be a greater priority than prisons and graveyards.

The ends never justify the means.

A Democracy is more fragile, and therefore needs more protection, than a Republic. The former is an idea, while the latter is a thing. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance is somewhat misleading. A symbol, such as a flag, stands for an idea or ideal, not a thing. A thing is a limited interpretation, a casting in the temporary stone of time, so to speak, of an idea. It is not the idea itself, only a small part --- in the same way that a religion is merely a bucketful of seawater mistaken for the entirety of the ocean.

Once you disregard ideas in favor of things, you stop thinking. Once you stop thinking, it doesn't matter what the polls say, because the opinions you are offering are not your own, anyway. Most likely they have been given to by someone who does not know of, care about, value, respect, understand, or have any responsibility for, your life.

The responsibility, at least, they can never shoulder anyway. Responsibility is the price you pay for ideas --- whether your own or someone else's.