These Gentlemen

Occupied Wall Street (Part Three): The Notary, the Suit, and the Trader

2011-10-12T22:04:00.000-04:00

A short time after I finding the giant dry-erase board with the minutes and issues from meetings of the General Assembly, I came upon a curious sight. A woman sitting on the ground underneath a tree, behind a small table she had set up. Above her, a sign which read "Public Notary." A handful of clipboards and a stack of forms sat beside her. Wondering what it was she had set up, I decided to ask if she'd be open to an interview. She agreed, as long as I filled out one of her forms - the purpose of which she was about to explain - in exchange.

Me: Could I have your name again?

Caren: My name is Caren Dashow, otherwise known as Yesiree, the public notary.

Me: And how long have you been here at Occupied Wall Street?

Caren: I've been coming down every few days. I just started doing this the other day.

Me: Now "this" is - you're sitting under a sign that says "Public Notary" and you've got these manifestation forms here. Could you tell me what it is you're doing here specifically?

Caren: I am asking people to write down their visions for the future, and then I will notarize them - and they have to show proper identification - and the idea is to get a legal manifestation, a compilation that can be a document, and that could be used in different ways. It could be used as a document for the Library of Congress, it could be used by the General Assembly, however it is that we want to do this, but it's a good way to - kind of like what you're doing - to get a smattering of what different people think, what is our vision, what it is we want as opposed to what it is we don't want.

Me: Now, the message that I've been getting from the outside media sources covering the event is that this is . . . unorganized, it's divisive, it's . . . Americans against Americans, class warfare gets thrown around a lot. What's your impression of the attitude here (unrelated cheers in the background) besides the obvious brotherhood happening behind us?

Caren: Okay, well I think the disorganization is the strongest part. I think this is beautiful that for three weeks these people have been negotiating and figuring out ways that they want their future to be, you know? And . . . and the world is changing, and this is a big say in the way people want the world to change.

Me: What would make - you say you've been coming here about three weeks -

Caren: Yeah, off and on, not the entire time. I'd come when I could and I was trying to figure out what I could do to help this, and I thought "well, what I don't see is, not just a list of demands, but, I want to be able to see what it is people really want." So, this was a way to individually get voices to figure out what it is people want, and then I could do that, but also, as you're saying, to get that out, get that information out.

Me: Well thank you very much Caren, and I guess I'll fill one of these out now.

And I did, and she notarized and recorded my statement. It might even be up at http://yesireepublicnotary.wordpress.com/ one day.

After almost two hours of wandering around Occupied Wall Street I had yet to even really scratch the surface of the amount of diversity present in my interviews. The ways people had found to coexist peacefully and productively in the throng of humanity was nothing short of remarkable. I found myself at what sounded like a drum circle from a distance, but turned out to be just a handful of individuals banging away constantly to the cheers of onlookers and the consistent outbursts of pro-Occupation chants.

What I noticed a lot of as I made a lap around the park was the number of people with recording equipment. Voice recorders, camcorders, video phones, television cameras and sound equipment; there was no shortage of people going in amongst the people and trying to hear what they were saying and get the message out. It's a wonder to me I haven't heard more of the voices of the people in the mainstream media, because there is a wealth of recordings which must exist if what I saw was any indication. If you're looking for coverage of why the people are doing what they're doing, what they're saying about their reasons for being there, what it is they want, simply go to the scores of people - some, I'm sure, amateur reporters, others perhaps more like me, curious as to what people will say and wanting to spread their words to the outside - who have been covering the Occupation and posting their results on blogs, twitter, or YouTube. The age when the media could black out an event is over. The people can be their own media now.

I came across Troy again while walking on the other side of the protest line, and a few more of his signs were displayed. For those wondering "well, why are they there?" Troy's signs seem to make a few pretty strong points to consider.

They Have Perpetuated Inequality and Discrimination in the Workplace Based on Age, Color of One's Skin, Sexual Identity or Orientation.

They Have Taken Our Houses Through Illegal Foreclosure Processes Despite Not Having the Original Mortgage.

They Have Taken Bailouts from Taxpayers with Impunity and Continue to Give Executives Exorbitant Bonuses.

I've heard a lot about how the people Occupying Wall Street are a mixture of old hippies and bored college kids. Here's what I found.

High school students. College students. People just out of college, middle aged people, senior citizens, people who are white, black, Asian, Indian, Latino, Arabic, Native American, hippies, people in suits, people who came to the park after work and left a few hours later, people who had been living there for weeks, homeless people, poor people, middle-income people, well-off people, the unemployed, the underemployed, the gainfully employed. Schoolteachers and motorcycle gang members, waitresses and lawyers, people who had been New Yorkers their whole lives and people who had traveled from thousands of miles away to be there. Men, women and children. In sum, Americans.

It's everyone. It's every kind of American. It's Americans from everywhere. None of them have the same grievances to air, but they all have something. No one is there just to be there, no one I met is occupying just to be there. They have legitimate concerns about the way money is used in this country and they want to be heard.

It's not about a specific idea or goal. It's about our presence. It's about being there. It's about the message that is inherently sent by performing the act of Occupying Wall Street.

On the side of the park opposite that facing Wall Street, I came across a duo seated on top of the stairs, each holding a sign. Both were dressed in suits which probably cost more than my monthly car payment. They were both frequently checking their iPhones. These were not unemployed people desperate for work and coming to complain for free money. One had a sign which read My Job is Tough - Buying Politicians is Hard Work. I spoke with Dustin, who was holding a sign which simply stated Democracy, not Plutocracy.

Dustin: Well we were founded as a Democracy, but what we have now is a Plutocracy, where government benefits only the wealthy.

Me: And how long have you been coming here?

Dustin: I've been here since Sunday.

Me: So what do you see when you look around here?

Dustin: I see the people are angry, and they're here to do something about it.

Me: And do you, personally, think something is being accomplished? Are their voices being heard?

Dustin: Yeah, I think we're being heard. We don't have any specific demands quite yet to propose, but we're definitely being heard by the nation.

Me: Now, that lack of specific demands. I've talked to other people about it and they say it's a good thing, it makes it more inclusive. It means everyone can get involved. Do you think that's true?

Dustin: Yeah, that's true - anyone can get involved, as long as it has to do with the fact that our financial institutions have basically bankrupted our government.

Me: And how long do you intend to keep coming here?

Dustin: Indefinitely.

Me: Thanks Dustin, it's been great talking to you.

I found a notice board a short way back into the park, behind the kitchen, near the entrance to the park. There was a stream of information on it; the local weather forecast, the number of days the occupation had lasted (and a notice to use dry erase markers, no sharpies), and a count; the number of U.S. Cities Occupied by the movement was at 148, along with 28 cities outside the United States. Below that, a notice to observe quiet hours from 10PM to 8AM out of respect for neighbors.

As sundown approached, I was looking for one more person to interview before leaving the park for the day. I knew I wanted something different, but practically everyone was different, so it was hard to narrow down my choices. Then I passed by a discussion circle.

I found myself drawn in to find a middle-aged man with an intense stare engaged in a serious discussion about the nature of Wall Street. It wasn't long before he was approached by a boisterous and angry man who identified himself as being from Boston. The first man, as it turns out, was a former Wall Street trader there to talk with people about exactly how it is Wall Street makes money. As his discussion/disagreement with the Bostonian escalated (the Bostonian insisted the problem was that there's no production in the country - we no longer produce anything in our economy) his views were made fairly clear.

First, he was letting people know that Wall Street serves a useful purpose. The money which is moved by trading is facilitated by Wall Street, and that's useful for society and the economy.

Second, if you walked to the clothing store across the street, grabbed a handful of shirts and walked out, you'd be prosecuted. That's stealing. The Bostonian brought up the Glass-Steagall Act with the same intensity which Jacob had spoken of it earlier. The former trader rebuked this idea with the fact that repealing Glass-Steagall wasn't good, but it didn't make securities fraud legal. It didn't make tying mortgages together legal. The problem was that people get arrested for every day crimes, yet no one on Wall Street was getting arrested, there was no individual liability for people who defraud the system for their own benefit or that of their company.

Finally, underlying everything, he made a point to mention how the people in America regularly - I should say consistently - get taken in by rhetoric and vote against their best economic interests due to a woeful lack of education on the issue.

After the Bostonian had moved on, I managed to get a quick interview. He seemed like he wanted to remain anonymous, and I get that impression from his websites as well, so his name has been omitted.

Me: I'm standing here next to a sign which reads "Former Trader Discusses How Wall Street Makes Money." And you said you worked for 12 years in trading securities, is that right?

: Treasuries, treasury bonds.

Me: Treasury bonds, okay. So what brings you Occupied Wall Street?

: Well, since I left, I spent some time talking to people in government, and SEC, Department of Justice, etc., about how Wall Street makes money in the bond market, which I knew from my personal experience, and that is that there's a lot of front-running by dealers of their customers, meaning trading ahead at their customer's expense, and didn't get a lot of . . . it wasn't very receptive. Neither the SEC or Department of Justice very interested. I've talked to a lot of politicians, basically anyone that's on a committee that's involved in this, I've contacted them to say "hey, you might want to look at this."

I contacted the SEC again after the whole financial crisis to say "well, it might not have been interesting beforehand, you might want to look at what goes on in the treasury market because the treasury market is the most liquid and transparent market in the world, and that stuff is going on there, you can kind of extrapolate what goes on in the mortgage market, which is traded by basically the same people, same trading source, same firms, as the treasury market, and therefore - and far less liquid and transparent - and so by extrapolation it might help you understand what went on there.

Again, not much interest.

So, I follow anyone who's interested in questioning or attacking what happens on Wall Street, and so I thought I'd come down and take a look.

Me: And how long have you been here?

: I got here around 2:00 or so.

Me: This is your first day here?

: Yeah. First and last.

Me: So how has the discussion been since you've been here today?

: Well, I heard Jeff Sachs give a good speech, aside from that . . . I mean, there are people here with a lot of different interests, some of which I don't think are directly tied into Wall Street - which I guess is both good and bad. Because there aren't that many people who have the insight into Wall Street that I do, so most people here have kind of a . . . more diffuse sense of that things aren't going that well, which I don't disagree with, and I think it's important to understand it's certainly not healthy for the economy to have double the share of our nation's wealth that's gone towards finance in the last 30 years. Certainly hasn't helped things.

Me: And my last question for you today, and thank you for speaking with me, if you just had anything you might want to say to anyone who might be interested as to why you came here or more interested in what you have to say - I guess a general message, what would that be?

: Well, if you're interested in the specifics of the treasury market, I've got a website; http://ustreasurymarket.com/, kind of help you get going if you're not familiar with the bond market, and in terms of just general rants about Wall Street, I've got a website - http://efficientmarkets.com/. I think that - you know, I think it's just wasteful to have such a huge proportion of our country's resources devoted to finance when much of it really isn't doing much, this zero-sum gaming or outright theft, and a lot of these people - many of these people - are smart, hard-working talented people, and if finance didn't pay the most, they'd be doing something useful.

So I think we should try to bring finance back to where it was before, where - there are going to be a few people making a lot of money on Wall Street, because if you're able to be right about markets, obviously it's going to pay you very well. It's just that there aren't that many people who make money being right about markets. Most people make money being in the middle of a very dishonest and inefficient system. And that's - they're really kind of the longshoremen of this generation. There's a lot of graft. It's basically not that different from - basically, you know the mob - when there was a lot of freight coming into New York City and you brought a shipping container in here, they knew they were going to lose a certain amount of it to the longshoremen - to the mob. And these kind of attacks on the economy, it was - it's kind of the reason no one ships anything in through New York City anymore.

And likewise, Wall Street is basically attacks on the rest of the country's economy, and there's really no alternative. You can't really find somewhere else to go because they control all of it. Anything that reduces their share of the economy will both be good to reducing inequality which is bad from a justice standpoint and bad from a company standpoint, which - you just can't compete with these guys. Look at any - just take Universities. I went to school at the University of Chicago, look at the Board of Trustees. It's all guys from Wall Street, because who else has that kind of money? Who else can give $5,000,000? I mean, the occasional successful Steve Jobs can, or Bill Gates can, but in terms of just thousands and thousands of people who have a lot of money, you're talking Wall Street. And that's not good.

Me: Well thank you very much for speaking with me.

I left the park after speaking with the trader. I had a previous engagement with some friends, but I was eager to get back home afterwards and write up the report on all I had seen and done while Occupying Wall Street.

Then, on my way to the subway station, a horde of sign-waving protestors as large as the group gathered in the park came marching up the street. They passed by me, chanting "People! United! Will never be defeated!" The police had to shepard traffic away from them as they marched in their great numbers.

I realized that, compared to how much is happening on Wall Street right now, how many stories make up the Occupation, I hadn't seen anything in my all-too-brief stay. What's happening on Wall Street cannot be contained in a series of interviews, or on-the-spot reporting, or a heated discussion between two politically-dissimilar pundits. What's happening is a movement. You've got to be there for yourself, stand amongst the people, talk to the people, to even get a glimmer of understanding as to what it all means.

And to the people decrying the movement, let me just say this; when hundreds of thousands of people come together to voice their outrage at the financial institutions of America, for hundreds of thousands of different reasons, and every one of them has some degree of legitimacy - that means there is a problem with our financial institutions, and you are likely on the wrong side of the line.

One thing I will say in conclusion, though. I have never believed in the idea that you could change a system from the outside. I went to Wall Street wanting to find out from the people there what their thoughts were as opposed to listening to others worlds away, literally and figuratively, tell me what was going on. I might have believed in their goals, but not necessarily their methods. I've long been of the opinion that if you really want to affect change, you have to become a part of the system and work from inside.

Experiencing what's happening on Wall Street though, and knowing it's happening around the country, it makes me believe that maybe there's an exception to that rule.

Until I see for sure, I'll keep going back, every weekend for as long as I can, and bring the words of Occupy Wall Street back to you.

Finally, a last note - it's a fatally flawed misnomer to call them disorganized. This operation runs like clockwork, and it knows exactly what it is doing, and are prepared to keep it up for as long as they need to.

They are the 99%, and the 1% can only withstand a siege like this for so long.

Occupied Wall Street (Part Two): The Gospel of Reverend Billy

2011-10-08T21:54:00.000-04:00

After my talk with Jacob I spent some more time going through the camp, but it wasn't long before my attention was taken by a figure in a white sports jacket, white dress pants, white collar and black shirt. He sported a mass of bleach-blond hair atop his head which waved back and forth rhythmically as he called to the audience gathered around him. Cameras were on him. A crowd had formed quickly. Every few words of his spirited sermon, he would pause, and just as they did when someone was making an announcement, the crowd would repeat everything he had just said loud enough for everyone outside the circle to hear.

He was passionate in every word, and spoke with a voice that infused the crowd with energy. This was my encounter with Reverend Billy of the Anti-Consumerist Church, and this is what he had to say. Ellipses added wherever the crowd shouted back what he was saying.

"To my daughter Lina . . . back in Brooklyn . . . Amen!

I'm Reverend Billy . . . from the Stop-Shopping Church (applause, cheers). I've been talking to . . . sooooome people! Arooound New York . . . and arooound the world. And some of them . . . laugh, and loath this thing we're doing.

And some of them . . . they go "ohhhhhhhh . . . I don't know!"
"Ohhhh . . .how is that gonna work?"
"Ohhhhhhhh . . . it's kinda . . vague!"
"What are the . . . specific demands?!"
"What do they WANT?"
And I say . . . the answer is . . . to occupy Wall Street!"

Let me share with you . . . what I believe . . . and the people in my Anti-Consumerist Church believe . . . that occupying Wall Street . . . could not be more specific!

(Extended cheers)

Living here . . . living here on this square . . . exercising the freedoms . . . of the First Amendment . . . Speech! Worship! Press! Peaceable gathering! And protest! The First Amendment . . . has not been in public space . . . in New York City . . . since 9/11!

We have it here now.

(Cheers, applause)

We are living in the First Amendment! It is a part of the occupation . . . speaking and singing . . . feeding and making media . . . and being surprised by people. People arriving from everywhere . . . for a thousand different reasons . . . is completely specific.

Children!

I'm losing my voice . . . but you have many voices.

Those freedoms . . . Americans have died for . . . and now we . . . are living those freedoms.

And this force . . . will cross that sidewalk . . . and go up that escalator . . . and walk into the corner office . . . where they keep those financial formulae . . . that victimize us . . . our living . . . will dismantle . . . their mathematics.

Thank you, people."

I kept getting hung up on his emphasis on what about the protest was, in his words, completely specific. Thousands of people from thousands of places coming for thousands of different reasons, all because they heard of the Occupy Wall Street movement and said "yes, the thing I am concerned about directly relates to that. This is where I need to go."

And the Reverend was right. That is very specific.

I spent some more time walking through the camp, and found a dry erase board with a list of notifications from the General Assembly. It had the minutes from a meeting the day before, needs of the people living in the park, planning for the space, and announcements from people all around the country whom had come to list grievances. The detail was incredible considering that it came from what appeared to be a meeting with open participation in a crowd of thousands. Maybe it wasn't a list of specific, agreed-upon demands, maybe it wasn't a detailed list of solutions to the problems they perceived, but it was a structured and organized plan for how they intend to continue Occupying Wall Street.

Among the things on the announements;

"Transparency is becoming an issue, info desk needs to know meeting times."
"Suits don't equal lack of support, treat all with respect."
"This is a drug-free park, it endangers everyone else."

I was hoping to get some time to interview some of the kitchen staff, but unfortunately the volunteers were heavily burdened by the line of Occupiers. They moved with constant and frenetic energy, moving from one task to the next and only stopping when a brief pep-talk needed to be called to go over duties and keep everyone together.

Despite the pressure on them, I didn't see one who was short with anyone else, or snippy to people in the line, or express any outward signs of anger. In fact, anger was a hard emotion to find in the camp. Discontent, of course, frustration, perhaps, but if I had to sum up the entire atmosphere in a single word it would be . . . open.

An increasingly good feeling about what was happening here coming over me, I moved on to my next set of interviews, where I met a public notary and a Wall Street trader. But more on that in Part Three.

Occupied Wall Street (Part One)

2011-10-08T15:50:00.003-04:00

The last 21 days have seen the birth and growth of a movement which has come to be known as Occupy Wall Street. Thousands of protestors from around the country have gathered in the nerve center of America's financial institutions to protest . . . well, that's the question, isn't it?

I have heard a lot in recent weeks about what the protestors stand for, or don't stand for. I've heard them called a mob, heard them called divisive and un-American, heard that they're instigating class warfare. I've even heard from potential Presidential candidate Herman Cain that they're just jealous. The country's largest news organization, on the front page of its website today, lent two stories to the protests; one about how they're dirtying up the park, and another criticizing their criticism of banking based on frozen donation funds. On the other side of things, people have extolled to me the virtue of what's happening, that this kind of revolution taking place is exactly what the country needs. People are angry at Wall Street and the way business has been done in this country, the disproportionate wealth, the unfair and unscrupulous business practices, the influence of corporate money in our politics, and more.

What I've been told more than anything though, from people who both support and detract from the movement, is that the movement has no direction, no cohesion, that it's disorganized and rudderless, and without a specific message, they're not going to get anywhere. It's great (or terrible) that they're there, but they won't accomplish anything until they propose some solutions or list some demands. Without that, they're just a bunch of angry college kids.

So I decided I'd heard quite enough from people outside of the occupation about what was happening within it. Today, I went into Occupied Wall Street to bring the message from the people there out to rest of the world. These are some of those messages.

It is October 7th of 2011 and I am on my way to Wall Street to find out exactly what the protestors there want from the financial institutions of America. At 3:50 PM, I enter the occupation and look around for people to talk to. After some time spent just getting my bearings in the camp staked out at Zuccoti Park, I came across a pair holding up two particularly well-made signs. As you might imagine, the protest area is awash in cardboard and posterboard, rampant with slogans ranging from scathing to humorous, along with a solid mixture of both. This pair, however, were holding up two professionally-made banners which caught my eye. That's what prompted me to approach Troy, a twenty-something Occupier and, I found out, the maker of the signs.

Me: Hi, would you mind saying your name?

Troy: My name is Troy Kreiner.

Me: Troy, how are you doing today?

Troy: Doing well, how are you?

Me: Good. So what brings you to Wall Street? To Occupied Wall Street, specifically.

Troy: To ask questions. And to help hand out statements from the General Assembly's declaration, which is like the one I'm holding above me and the one my friend is holding next to me. I came here last week, I noticed a lot of people voicing their concern of not understanding why people are here, and saying "well, it's all unorganized," and, uh, I wanted to, you know, make some signs for people that they could define themselves with, something that they could gravitate towards, so they could have something that they'd want to associate with. So, I've been handing out some of these signs, and this one associates with myself, and the one next to me probably associates with other people as well.

Me: Now, I don't have a camera, so do you mind if I just read what your sign says? (He answers no). The sign Troy is holding says They Have Held Students Hostage With Tens of Thousands of Dollars of Debt on Education Which is Itself A Human Right and the sign next to him says They Have Poisoned the Food Supply Through Negligence and Undermined the Farming System Through Monopolization. So, if you had the chance to send this message, or a message, directly to Wall Street, to someone who had some actual influence over these things, what would you tell them? What would you - if you had just an argument to make or a solution to propose, what would you say?

Troy: This is the thing - I don't have a solution yet. I'm just scratching the surface and asking questions and - trying to start a dialogue. I don't have an answer yet, and . . . it's okay.

Me: It is. That's actually the best answer I could've asked for.

After speaking with Troy, I moved along the camp of the protestors to see a little bit about how they were living after three weeks inside a park. Almost immediately I saw they had set up what appeared to be a free and fully functioning kitchen staffed entirely by volunteers, men and women of all age groups preparing and handing out food to a long line of hungry occupiers. The buffet line, for lack of a better word, was filled with donated fruits, vegetables, bread, and even chicken wings. There's a compost heap for the sanitary disposal of food waste. Despite what that article Fox News has posted regarding the way the protestors are treating the park, there are signs posted by the Occupiers alerting people not to disturb the park's flower beds.

Several times I saw the occasion arise for someone to make an announcement, be it to notify people about a general meeting on sanitation duties or to let someone know they left their glasses in the kitchen. Every time someone would shout a few words and the crowd around them, without instruction, would immediately echo what was just said to ensure as many people could hear what was going on as possible. For what I'd heard described as an unorganized movement, there was a pretty substantial level of organization.

There was also what appeared to be a yoga class happening, and New York City's own Naked Cowboy was on hand. I did not stop to interview the Cowboy.

I had moved outside the protestors line now to read the signs and hear some of the conversations happening It was there I encountered Jacob, a gentlemen who looked to be in his mid-fifties. He was holding a sign lamenting the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The repeal of that Act by Bill Clinton during his second term is cited by many as the catalyst for today's financial instability, but Jacob was the first person I had seen with a sign specifically referencing it. My interview with Troy had been brief, to the point, and informative. This was to be the opposite.

Me: Hi sir, what's your name?

Jacob: My name is Jacob Josefs.

Me: Hi, Jacob. Your sign says "Mr. Bill Clinton, Why Did You Remove the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933?" And I was hoping -

Jacob: And read the other question.

Me: (The sign goes on) "And Mr. George Bush et all, Why Did You Help Rape U.S.A?" Very good questions, and I was wondering if you would say a few words to people who aren't here to occupy Wall Street, people I'm trying to get the message out to, about what repealing Glass-Steagall meant for America.

Jacob: Well, when they repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, technically, it was done under the last term, the lame duck term, of Bill Clinton. And they always forethink - they can see what's going on in the next five to ten years. That's how they work. And, uh, ah, Bill Clinton, he committed the biggest sin he could have ever committed. He disrespected the old-timers, the grandparents, of the FDR administration. Congress, his . . . grand-Congress. Family. Parents. By repealing that Glass-Steagall Act when it was specifically created because that was the last legislation to prevent . . . from what happened. With the JPMorgan Chase people, with the robber barons people, they learned about this, all this inflating stocks, and monopoly, blah, blah, blah, and that's why they wrote the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, so that they could prevent the very . . . result that happened here in 2007, 8, and 9, and we're seeing this, and, uh, shame on them so Clinton technically in the 90s, late 90s, repealed it, or removed it, ahh, and then George Bush did the raping. And that's what we have here.

Actually, everybody in Congress, everybody, uh, all those nepotists, all those . . .ah, example of what we're talking about right here at Ground Zero and New York State we have a New York State Senator, his name is Chuck Schumer. Why should he be a Senator for 30 years? We need term limits here. Or, for example, let's take that idiot Weiner, Anthony Weiner, flashing his, his, his uh, underwear, on the uh, Twitter websites. He overstayed his job, uh, as a Congressman. And even - I pulled for him. And, uh, the thing is we need to change. So we've got Clinton, he undid the Steagall Act, flouted the uh, grandparents, and they said "you can't undo it," but he did it, so it shows you that they do what they want to do and we have no more voice, and we're rising up today here, and we're gonna - we're not gonna stop til' . . . I don't care if it's 1% or 2%, 3 percenters, 4, uh, whatever it is, we're gonna prevail, and we're gonna change the system, Congress is gonna have to . . . ah, make room for um, sacrifice. And heads are gonna start rolling, and we need uh, Gradarian* Democracy.

What is Gradarian Democracy? Gradarian Democracy is uh, instead of having the stock exchange representing corporations, entities, like people, but we'll have what they call People's Exchange. And uh, what this entails is, uh, the floor of the Congress will have a People's Exchange - a ticker - that represents every zip code of the Union, the 50 states, and also, in the floors of the Senate. And what Gradarian Democracy means is that 16-year-olds - because of the internet - and 17-year-olds will likewise be able to vote parallel to the 18-year-olds. And then, what we will do, we don't have to go and waste time, and start pulling levers somewhere in some, uh, school-place where they have voting booths, or we have to trust ourselves with these, uh, these, the new computers that they have - I mean, it's enough we learned from Florida - and, uh, you know, so, the point is we can literally, you know - even Green Card holders - Green Card holders shall have the right to vote. They could vote, say, for the governor. Of the state they're in. Okay? We can limit that, and/or they could vote for the President.

*I'm not sure this is a word, I couldn't find it anywhere, so it may be Jacob's own idea.
Me: (Finally getting my tape recorder, which he had taken from me, back) You think that anyone who is affected by policies that states pass should have a say in those policies? A say in their representatives?

Jacob: Say that again, I'm sorry.

Me: Anyone who lives in a state and is going to be affected by policies that state is going to pass, should have a say in who their representatives are? Be they teenagers or green card holders - anyone who lives in America.

Jacob: Yeah, well, you know - but, we're talking about the mature audience. The 16-year-olds today are very mature, they're very advanced for their time, you know - due to the internet. Not only that, the TV and stuff, they, uh - and you know, they're taller than they were 50 years ago, they live longer than they did 50 years ago, and uh, and uh . . . they need a voice. The 16, 17-year-olds need a voice. They're part of this. And the, the, the green card holders should be able to vote, too. And, uh . . . pardon me . . . but, as I was saying, Gradarian Democracy will be such that we'll have a certain day of the month, we could call it the Votery Association Day, and what we'll do is, what we'll do is, we'll uh, we'll actually uh, vote right from our living rooms, right from our TVs. And the question will be; it will be the Congress, and/or the President, who can get all the Senate, the leadership of the - that, or the Congress - and even the President can come to us and say "hey, should we make war with Iraq? Yea or nay." That's it. And we'll see it up there like a ticker. Like a - on the People's Ticker. We'll see where all the yeas come from, and all the nos. And it will be final. That's it. You don't have to make your job seem like it's so complicated. It ain't complicated. My 16-year-old could do your Congressman's job. Senator. It's all really, it's all, it's super - it's really deceit, is what it is. And, and really, they can't fool us anymore. Period.

So, God Bless America anyway. I'm looking at the, uh, uh building - the World Trade Center Two area, from Liberty Street, I'm looking at that building, I know the One World Trade Center is about on its 87th floor, or - no, 83rd floor, and believe it or not, America's gonna rise again. Remember that. America's gonna - and really, when it comes to 19 - uh - 2014, that's when it's all gonna happen. And uh, excuse me, but . . . excuse me but, vote for Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney. He will be the first President to have a woman Vice-President, and he's gonna be the President to make 16-year-olds, or 17-year-olds, or give them the right to vote. Anyway, be healthy, be well, hugs and kisses to all the brothers and the sisters.

Me: Now, I just have one more question. Mind telling me how long you've been here already (My meaning was here at Occupy Wall Street)?

Jacob: I came from Israel when I was uh . . .five years old. I'm 56 years old, I grew up and lived in Coney Island most of my life, my parents came to this country from Israel as immigrants in 1960 . . . my parents had a choice to come to Australia or America, my father chose America. We came here by ship, and the first thing we saw when we - as we were approaching New York Harbor, my father touched me on the head and takes me out on the starboard side, and he says, "Yakov" - Jacob, Jack - "lo and behold, we've just landed." And as we're walking into the harbor we see the parachute jump in Coney Island, you know, moving, up and down, and uh . . and that was amazing. And actually I became a U.S. Merchant Seaman, I traveled all over the world. And I studied all 5 of the world's major religions - all the major religions of the world. So, I'm, I don't consider myself Jewish anymore. I consider myself as a, ahhh, a hard word, but, it's called an Apocalyptarian. I'm an Apocalyptic figure, not pre-Apocalyptic. I believe we can't walk on H2O, we can't just uh . . .beam down, or beam up by photons. You know, the biblical life story, that's their story. That's pre-Apocalyptic. The people walking on water story, that's their pre-Apocalypse story. Not my story, so, uh, we're waking up. America's gonna rise again, and the dollar is gonna be supreme.

Me: Alright. And how long have you been here occupying Wall Street?

Jacob: I've been here - I used to work in building one, room 8411, it was a general communications corporation, I worked for Chinese people, and what I did was - I used to promote . . . it was a Microsoft school. They had a contract with Microsoft to promote and teach hands-on, people who wanted to learn Microsoft, and they would get certificates for the products - you know, like Professional, stuff like that, and uh . . . but I've been here since Monday. I do business in this area, Department of Consumer Affairs, right down on Broadway, and uh, I was affected by this, and - the election is coming. The election is coming. The election is coming.

Me: Jacob, thank you very much, it's been great talking to you, and I will get your message out to the people.

And so I did.

The difference between Troy and Jacob couldn't have been more pronounced. Troy is a young man with questions to ask and the desire to open up a dialogue with the organizations he is protesting against, and he readily admits he doesn't have any easy solution. Jacob is in his mid-50s, and he not only has solutions ready to propose, but he seems to have thought them through in great detail. Troy was brief, succinct, and stayed very much on the topic of why he was there and what he had been doing. Jacob went on an extended rant and bounced around from topic to topic as they occurred to him. Two entirely different sides of the spectrum, both pulled in to Occupy Wall Street by what they see is a legitimate chance to make some real change happen. But was the rest of the park filled with more focused, level-headed Troys, or more scattershot, ranting Jacobs? As with any movement so large, with tens of thousands of people involved, I'd have to guess that you'd find a pretty fair representation of both.

But is that a strength or a weakness? Does the presence of such radically opposed reasons for being in Zuccoti Park undermine the movement by creating a lack of cohesion, a vagueness of message, a confusion of why people are there in the first place?

I'd get the answer to that question in the form of a sermon from one Reverend Billy, which will follow in Part Two.

Guest Gentleman: Dear DCPS...

2011-04-08T01:42:00.004-04:00

Today's Guest Gentleman is a dear friend and very, very good teacher with more patience and love in her heart than I can ever imagine possessing.

Thank you for your honest and informative feedback provided by your most recently hired “Master Educator” of the current WL teacher at $%HS in Washington DC. According to your rubric, she has been qualified as a Minimally Effective teacher, scoring not so much as one 3 or 4 out of 4 points in any of the Teach 1-9 categories on your IMPACT rubric. According to your score, this is what a “minimally effective” teacher looks like:

- She has been at the same position for 3 years and has developed positive rapports with 80-90% of the students she’s taught (P.S. She almost just wrote “teached”. Thank you also for the stellar grammatical influence your environment has on college graduates).
- She has gotten to school hours before and after the required time to A) plan lessons, B) grade quizzes, projects and in-class assignments that clearly show production of a language other than English and C) organize extracurricular activities that you put on her shoulders the DAY BEFORE THEY TAKE PLACE because you failed to take the responsibility on yourself and she didn’t want to let the students down.
- She is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Foreign Language Education and Teaching English as a Second Language Certification to become a better teacher for your students.
- She was nominated as her Department Chair in her second year of teaching (granted by default) and took an enormous workload including statistical analysis of the (non)growth of student achievement without so much as training her in any of the documentation that is so “official”.
- She remains a solid presence in her students’ anything-but-stable lives, serving as a mother, best friend, sister, guidance counselor, mentor and teacher while also trying to maintain her own life separate from work.

I could go on about the “detrimental” behaviors and actions that this teacher has engaged in to make you consider her “Minimally Effective” when, miraculously, she has never received an overall score of less than a 3.2 out of 4 in her two years teaching under this imperfect IMPACT evaluation system.

Why then did she receive in her most recent “Master Educator” evaluation a 1.66 out of 4 overall?? Tell me, was she drunk in front of the classroom? Did she by chance hit or insult any of the students in your presence? In fact, did any of the students act out AT ALL at any point throughout the tiny, 30-minute window you saw into her class when she teaches 3 classes for 80 minutes a day? (Because really, that’s what her job has become: babysitting.)

The District of Columbia is special. You tell the teachers and students so every day. We are in a unique situation and are pioneers of the future of education, specifically ensuring that every single classroom is stocked with a “Highly Effective” teacher, who apparently engages in none of the behaviors exhibited so erroneously by the WL teacher at $%HS. She understands what it takes to be an effective teacher, and in fact, scored 4. Points. Away from being considered “Highly Effective” last year and receiving a considerable amount of money, the possibility of being observed and filmed as a model classroom for potential new hires to the District. Why then did she receive a score of 1.66 out of 4?

Yes, the “Monster Educator”, Mr. @, championed for the rights of World Languages. He claimed that he was an advocate for them, and that only when we worked together to demand professional development (because it is our right) that we would receive scores that ACCURATELY reflect our teaching abilities. So Mr. @ told this poor WL teacher that her scores were essentially not accurate.

…

Let’s think for a moment: How can you claim to represent a system that insists upon having Effective and Highly Effective teachers in the classroom when the very rubric you work upon is NOT ACCURATE?? Her job, salary and integrity are at stake because of this imperfect evaluation system. How demeaning to hear from a man who saw 30 minutes of one lesson, on one day, in one week, of one month, in one year of a course that she is “Minimally Effective” in not one, but NINE categories. Who. Do you think. You are?

DCPS, you claim to support teachers and initiatives that retain teachers for longer than a Teach for America or DC Teaching Fellows stint of two years. This teacher CHOSE to come to the District after graduation, maybe not fully understanding what she was getting herself into, but she put her heart, soul, mind, body and LIFE into this job. You didn’t put a single person into her classroom her first year of teaching. NOT ONE. She was put out to sea with swimmies and somehow managed to make it through the Bermuda triangle, shark-infested waters and the annoyance of jellyfish stings, to stay on to a third year at an institution that you claim is “on the mend”.

I’m sorry, DCPS, but you just lost the most Highly “Minimally Effective” WL teacher that you will NEVER find again. I guarantee that not many people have the heart that she has to do what she did for so long for your district. When you continually tell her that is it HER fault that students are not succeeding, she beings to believe it.

However, she has come to realize that she doesn’t have to tread this murky water any longer. There are countless other districts around the world that would throw out life vests, buoys, canoes and jet skis just to get this “Minimally Effective” WL teacher into their programs.

So, if your goal is the retention of Effective to Highly Effective teachers, you’re doing an extremely poor job of giving them the support they need. You can’t come in three years later and assess this teacher who’s been doing a pretty good job on a rubric that you never prepared her or trained her for. You are setting teachers up for failure and you are burning them out by placing ALL of the blame on them.

It’s time for this WL teacher who is so much more than “Minimally Effective” according to your rubric to go test the waters elsewhere, reflect on her time in DCPS with fondness and to selectively remember all of the other positive comments, feedback and scores she has received in her three years of service to your District.

Thank you for your time. I wish you the best of luck. You will need it.

Sincerely,
Mademoiselle

Something Occurred To Me

2011-04-01T13:28:00.003-04:00

...today while I was on the Interwebz. I had to put in my date of birth to prove that I was old enough to visit a site with graphically violent images. As I did so, I realized I'm 25. Short of running for a few elected offices, there's pretty much nothing that I'm not allowed to do anymore. I'm never going to put my birth date down and hear someone say, "Sorry, you're not old enough yet."

That's a weird feeling.

I Was Told There Would Be Snow

2011-02-22T20:23:00.000-05:00

A portrait of my Monday evening in three haikus:

I wanted a half-smoke.
Where are you hot dog cart guy?
Now I am hungry.

It's President's Day
And it's raining in D.C.
No one out to eat.

Saw gum in the road.
Thought that it was a quarter.
Such disappointment.

RoundTable of Loooove

2011-02-18T14:23:00.010-05:00

Valentine's Day has come and gone, but love (and its antithesis) are always in the air. These Gentlemen gathered 'round the RoundTable to discuss our favorite love and anti-love songs, and they go as thus...

David Pratt
I've got plenty of good love songs I could list here, but in my travels I've come across three exceptional anti-love songs. I would be remiss not to mention them here, along with my two picks for top two in the pro-love field.

3) "Again I Go Unnoticed" by Dashboard Confessional

Key lyrics:
Please tell me you're just feeling tired
cause if it's more than that I feel that I might break
out of touch, out of time.
Please send me anything but signals that are mixed
cause I can't read your rolling eyes
out of touch, are we out of time?

This is a wrenching song for anyone in a relationship where they can tell the days are numbered. The singer is obviously trying desperately to hold on to a love that is slowly slipping away from him, and not in a dramatic fashion either. The relationship is over for one of them, and she's going to slowly slip away from a person who doesn't want it to end.

2) "Said the Spider to the Fly" by The Paper Chase

Key lyrics:
Good things die all the time,
God bless your heart, vengeance is mine.
"Kiss me like you mean goodbye," said the spider to the fly.
When all those times you thought that you were wrong, you were right.

This song takes place clearly after the love has already ended, and at least one of the participants is looking back on this with a little bit of bitterness ("when your lover loves to cheat there's another you can meet, it's a short pier it's a long walk - home"). If you want to look back on a failed relationship and be filled with righteous indignation about it, this is the song to listen to.

1) "Don't Say a Word" by Sonata Arctica

Key lyrics:
Closing your eyes, don't ever say you love me, whore
You never meant a word, I know you lied
When there is life, there is despair, indulge me now
And stay alive this night
I promise you the end before the first light arrives

So, unlike the last two, this song is about an angry, angry relationship and is about as firmly anti-love as you can get. Whatever happened between the two people in this song was terrible, self-destructive, and mutually devastating, probably from the start. It takes a special kind of bad break-up to spawn a metal song, and we have a front row seat to it.

I'd also list "Almost Lover" by A Fine Frenzy, but since I'm limited to 5 I'll press on to more uplifting fare.

For Love Songs, I'm trying to stay away from songs that specifically remind me of my girlfriend and stick with those that make great statements about the emotion itself. So with that in mind, the first two songs I think of are . . .

"Can't Stop Loving You" by Phil Collins

Key lyrics:
I could say that's the way it goes
And I could pretend and you won't know
That I was lying
Cause I can't stop loving you
No I can't stop loving you
No I won't stop loving you
Why should I?

Someone might say "Hey, this song is about a relationship ending, isn't that an anti-love song?" to which I'd say "No, you ignorant pleb, listen CLOSER." The girl in this song might be walking away from the guy, but he's not going anywhere. He loves this girl completely, entirely, and so what if she's leaving? She is all the love he ever wanted or needed - his life is better just for having known her. The song is strong and up tempo, and swells as it tells the story of her departure. He doesn't regret a thing. He found true love. Why would he ever try to let that go?

"Thank You" by Dido

Key lyrics:
I missed the bus and there'll be hell today,
I'm late for work again
And even if I'm there, they'll all imply
that I might not last the day
And then you call me and it's not so bad,
it's not so bad

So, if you've never seen the video for this song, Dido's having a much worse day then even these lyrics let on. She's essentially living the plot of the movie "Up," only she's fresh out of balloons. But the point of her song isn't all the awful stuff she's going through - it's that there's someone in her life who, when all of this happens, still makes everything wonderful simply with their presence. I don't know kids, that sounds like what love means to me.

Brett Abelman
"When You Smile," Flaming Lips - love song

Maybe it's just because I enjoy a love song that seems to compare love to nuclear fusion, or maybe it's because who but the Flaming Lips could make a love song sound as simultaneously innocent & sweet as it is trippy & dazed?

"Astral Weeks," Van Morrison - love song

I could potentially pick like a hundred Van Morrison songs, but this is my favorite for the transcendent, transported feeling. At least, its my interpretation that it's a love song; your guess is as good as mine as to what the lyrics really mean:

"If I ventured into the slipstream/Between the viaducts of your dreams/Where immobile steel rims crack/And the ditch in the back roads stop/Would you find me?/Would you kiss my eyes?/To lay me down/In silence easy/To be born again/To be born again."

"Soon It's Gonna Rain," from The Fantasticks - love song

'Cuz I'm a sap, and it was the first stage producion I worked on out of high school.

"Hyperballad," Bjork - love or anti-love song

I know, what? I pick it because it's either about 1) how love and the comfort of a loved one is the antidote to fear of death in a cosmic, existential way, or 2a) how the narrator is in an unhappy, reclusive relationship so bad the only way she can make it bearable is by contrasting it with a horrible death or 2b) the only way she can bear it is by (metaphorically) imagining that leaving her lover and being single would be like tumbling down a cliff to a horrible death. It's a multi-purpose lyric! And personally for all the stereotyping she gets as a ridiculous screecher, her singing here always gives me chills.

"Losing My Religion," REM - love song

It's actually my favorite song of all time, in a most extreme case of "songs mean a lot to you when you hear them at a certain time and associate them with the feeling of the time, regardless of whether they're extremely overexposed and well-known or not." It was approximately 1997 when I first really heard it, in middle school, and I associate it with my first crushes and all those crazy middle school-y feelings (but, strangely/luckily enough, only the positive ones - hooray for the filter of nostalgia?). And the lyrics just happen to fit perfectly. I'll let Michael Stipe explain:

"When you have a crush on somebody, and you think that they understand that but you're not sure, and you're dropping all kinds of hints, and you think that they're responding to these hints but you're not sure -- that's what this song is about: thinking that you've gone too far, you've dropped a hint that is just the size of Idaho, and they responded in a way that maybe confused you, or they haven't responded at all or they responded in a way that seemed like 'well, maybe I'm gonna- maybe I'm- maybe something's gonna happen here!' and I think I've probably said this seven thousand times, but the phrase 'losing my religion' is a southern phrase which means that something has pushed you so far that you would lose your faith over it. Something has pushed you to the nth degree, and that's what this is about. Now, some people still think that it's a song about religion; it's not. It's just a song about having a crush."

Max Nova

1. For reasons trivial and not of relevance now, Coldplay's "clocks" became the soundtrack to one of my early relationships. Soon after the relationship ended acrimoniously I was in a movie theater and the song was playing quite loudly. Thus it went from the soundtrack of a relationship to this soundtrack to me peeing.

2. When I was in college, I had a Joy Division shirt and said to friends that the first girl that commented positively was the girl I was gonna marry. Luckily I did not follow through on that.

3. I wonder if it's possible to have sex to Barry White without giggling hysterically.

A Love Song:

Allo Darlin -My Heart Is a Drummer

Not a Love Song

PIL - This is Not a Love Song

Brittany Graham
I have an annual tradition with a dear friend from high school, in which we send each other Anti-Love mixes for Valentines Day, and I’ll be posting on that later. So, in the interest of balance, all five of my choices are love songs. The very best love songs, in fact.

Weezer – Miss Sweeney: This song wins the award for most adorable EVER. About a man who has a tremendous crush on his coworker and can’t seem to keep his mouth shut about it, I get chills every time I hear that guitar riff in the chorus. This is the bonus track on their recentish Red Album, so don’t tell me Weezer can’t still do it if they put their minds to it.

The Beach Boys – Wouldn’t It Be Nice: I actually don’t like the Beach Boys at all, except for this solitary song, which I LOVE. The idea that a young couple can’t wait to grow up and grow old together really strikes a chord with me, a person who never really wanted young love anyway.

Johnny and June Carter Cash – ‘Cause I Love You: I love this song because I love Johnny and June, and think their story is one of the more romantic of our time. This is why I place them in a tie with a fictional couple with a very similar song, which inextricably binds them in my mind…

Jesse L. Martin and Wilson Jermaine Heredia as Collins and Angel – I’ll Cover You: This song, and its reprise, make me melt into a million little droplets of gooey sad/happiness/feelings. I am of the firm belief that Collins and Angel are the most perfect couple that ever lived. And don’t you even try to tell me they’re not real.

T.V. Carpio – I Want to Hold Your Hand: If given the choice, I don’t often choose the non-Beatles version of a song, but this is one glaring exception. I keep writing sentences about this song, deciding they’re not good/accurate enough, and deleting. Because the feelings I have when I listen to this song (loud, on repeat, and often in my car) are just too strong and uncomplicated, and wordless.

Daniel Bedingfield – If You’re Not the One: I don’t care what you say about the cheesy early 2000s music. This song destroys me. Every. Single. Time. I also chose it as my character inspiration song for a show I was in, in which I played a young woman in the 1940s who realizes that she is a lesbian, which biases me a bit. But seriously, if you have a soul this song is for you.

Ray Charles – Georgia On My Mind: Songs about the South, and Southern girls in particular, pretty much have full reign of my heartstrings at all times, no matter what. But this song, a love song to his home, gets me every time. For very different reasons, I too left Georgia a long time ago (the ancient 90s), but I feel the exact same way about my original home state. Ray Charles just says it sooo much better.

So there you have it, folks. We feel it. The love, that is. And also, you know, not. We hope you enjoy our playlist, for the new songs and to commiserate with your favorites. What are your favorite love and anti-love songs? We hope you'll share.

Gay Marriage, and Feminism, and Bears*, Oh My!

2011-02-04T23:51:00.000-05:00

Here is why gay marriage is important for the feminist cause:

Marriage is, historically, a business transaction between a man and a woman’s father. The woman’s father trades his daughter and a dowry, in exchange for protection for said daughter and, hopefully, a higher class status. Multiple wives have historically been important for bolstering population within the community. Marrying for love was essentially unheard of until the mid-20^th century in places like the United States and Europe, and more recently elsewhere in the world. Judeo-Christian tradition called for a woman to be married off as soon as possible, with or without her consent, in order to prevent extra-marital sin (her fault) and extra-marital children (also her fault) from occurring. And so the institution of marriage everywhere continues to essentially be an antiquated property exchange: for a caretaker for the man, for a provider for the woman, for children borne within the rules of society, and for a transaction of goods provided by both families.

That is, if the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman only. Because if the definition of marriage relates strictly to a heterosexual pairing, there is also the weighty societal assumption that women cannot provide, men cannot caretake, and that the couple will do their duty to God and procreate. Love has nothing to do with it; it is strictly business. But. If the definition changes as our society has changed and brings love into the mix, all bets are off. A woman can marry the man she loves, rather than the man her family loves or the man who loves/wants her. A woman can marry the woman she loves, rather than her best male friend who may or may not also be closeted. A woman can marry the man or woman she loves, regardless of class, social distinctions, career, or want for children. It’s a beautiful thing.

Freedom for one minority group of people spells freedom for the majority (52%) of humankind to love, to cherish, to spend her life in sickness and in health with the person she chose. The tradition of marriage is important; the ceremony binds a couple, their families, and their friends together in a way that simply moving in together can’t do. The legality of marriage is antiquated but very, very present in a couple’s everyday life. If a couple has that legal document in their possession, they hold rights and benefits reserved only for family, particularly in the health sector: for health benefits received from a job, for hospital visitation rights, for the right to decide whether a plug should be pulled, and for property and possession distribution after one of them has died.

So yes, feminists, marriage is extremely important, and it should absolutely not be done away with. But our society has changed; there is no population crisis and women are generally taught to marry for love, so the law should reflect this. Who a woman chooses to marry should reflect on love and shared values, not ability to procreate or heteronormative tradition.

*Sorry j/k there are no bears. Please still like me even though I sometimes lie to you about bears.

I Love the Smell of Revolution in the Morning

2011-02-02T22:52:00.002-05:00

We're kicking off a Gentlemonth of love here at These Gentlemen, and in doing so we'll be posting a lot about things we love, or hate, or maybe just crush on a little. So there's something going on in the world right now that I am just absolutely enamored with, and I thought I'd sing a little song about it . . .

I love democracy
and when protesters sing
I love a free press
and when freedom rings
I love the whole world
and all its awesome things
Boom de yada, boom de yada
Boom de yada, boom de yada

I love revolution
and people in the streets
I love a spirit
That won't accept defeat
I love what's happening
Out in the Cairo heat
Boom de yada, boom de yada
Boom de yada, boom de yada

I love Tunisians
and all the change they bring
I love the new hope
that we'll see by Spring
I love the whole world
and all it's awesome things
Boom de yada, boom de yada
Boom de yada, boom de yada

In case you haven't heard, Egypt is in the middle of what has become the largest political demonstration of the last century. It all started in Tunisia, when after 23 years of authoritarian rule, weeks-long protests across the country forced out President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. This all began when Mohamed Bouazizi, faced with corruption at every level of his local government in the span of a few hours, set himself on fire outside the governor's office. Bouazizi's self-immolation set off a wave of anti-government protests throughout Tunisia, leading to what might have seemed impossible previously - a complete change in government and concessions by the ruling party to form a cooperation government and give over to free elections. While that in and of itself was fairly unprecedented, what happened next was beyond comprehension.

It spread. It spread to Algeria. It spread to Jordan. It spread to Yemen. And it spread to the country the world is watching most closely right now; Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak has been in power for three decades. Yesterday, millions of Egyptian citizens flooded the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, and other cities to protest Mubarak's continued rule, a move which followed a week of demonstrations calling for freedom of speech, assembly, and an end to Mubarak's regime. They want freedom of assembly, they want a representational government, they want freedom of speech. They want a government that cares about their jobs and health and well-being. And they're willing to fight for it.

This is, in all seriousness, one of the most momentous events of my lifetime. A sweeping upheaval of the status quo in the Middle East, where dictatorships and monarchies are still the norm. The talk of this sweeping as far as Syria, Libya, and, dare I even suggest it, Saudi Arabia, will be made fact or rumor entirely based upon the outcome of what happens in Egypt right now. Should Mubarak be forced to step down, the protests still happening in other countries will gain momentum, and those which are still just burning embers will have new fuel added to the fire.

So I think there's no better time to open up a discussion about what's happening than right now, and right here on These Gentlemen. Let's go down the topics;

Violence

Violence broke out in the initial days of unrest, but then settled down as the police began to back off and the military moved in. When the military announced it had no intention of interrupting the protesters and was only there to keep the peace, the demonstration was emboldened. It's reported that protesters actually formed a human chain around the Egyptian National Museum to keep it safe from looters - who were mostly policemen. When demonstrators continued to observe their daily prayers, Christians and secularists also with the movement encircled their Muslim counterparts and protected them while it was happening. With people looking out for one another and the army not intervening, demonstrations were entirely peaceful for several days - until pro-Mubarak supporters moved in, on horses, and armed.

The thing is though, you can't just make a horse charge into a crowd. They have to be specially trained for that, and it's really only police horses that get that kind of training. Adding to the suspicion to this is that Mubarak is known to have roving gangs of "supporters" who go around during elections and literally stuff ballot boxes. Further casting doubt into the motivations of these pro-Mubarak regular Egyptian citizens just voicing their own opinion is a Twitter post in which an Egyptian on the scene reports hearing one, after being knocked off of a horse, say "this isn't worth £200." They also had a strange and pronounced tendency to actively seek out people with cameras and attempt to destroy them and the footage they contained.

And then there's this - a picture from the scene of ID cards taken from pro-Mubarak demonstrators, which proves they're members of Mubarak's own party and security forces.

So violence was not the objective of the protesters, but it came to them and they responded. Firebombing with molotov cocktails (incidentally, one of my favorite phrases) has broken out as well as clashes with rocks, sticks, and fists. The protesters finally organized literally a phalanx - a walking wall of makeshift metal shields, and began marching out from Tahrir Square where the demonstrations are taking place. They moved outwards, linked together, and forced the pro-Mubarak thugs back. Shots were fired into the crowd, tanks moved through the streets, but as of the time of this writing, the demonstrators had forced Mubarak's allies to retreat. They also took the overpass running over the square which Mubarak's forces had been using to hurl molotovs at them from above.

If this is the tone of demonstrations as (and if) they spread across the Middle East, it could be the most peaceful, inspiring revolution in history. Speaking of which -

The Domino Effect

Some people (myself included) have already speculated about what might happen if this spreads further. Rulers in Yemen and Jordan are already trying to get ahead of this, vowing not to seek re-election in the case of the former, and re-organizing the government in the case of the latter.

But not all of the Middle East is Egypt. Jordan is still a monarchy and the people seem just fine with that. I'm not sure how much change we can expect from other nations because a lot of them honestly don't see their rulers as the problem, and more just want reforms to the existing government. Similar actions are taking place in Syria, Sudan, and in the West Bank. Whether or not they seek actual changes in government is going to be dependent upon how their leaders handle protests when they arrive.

With that in mind though, one democratic movement or election does not a democracy make. If another regime is voted in, we could quickly end up with just another Iran on our hands.

So what can we do to try and make sure this doesn't happen? Is there a way the U.S. can try to ensure that people actually get the rights they're fighting for, and don't just trade one oppressive government for another? Well that's a mixed bag.

U.S. Involvement

A lot of people have been critical of the U.S. government's response to this whole affair. For some backstory, Hosni Mubarak is a pretty steadfast ally of ours, and important for sustained peace with Israel in the region. The government provides him with almost $2 billion annually. This is pretty much a yearly gift in exchange for not going to war with Israel. There's no telling if a regime change would mean new leaders would be amicable to this deal, since if there's two things they don't like in the Middle East, it's the U.S. and Israel.

There are two schools of thought on what we've done so far and I'm going to address both of them.

First, realistically, we have a lot of important alliances in the Middle East. We rely on governments in Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other places to help us in the war on terror, which keeps American citizens safe. If the people in power willing to aid us are also practically dictators, that's not a fact we can help. We're not in the business of toppling dictators and changing governments.

Ha, just kidding, we totally are, but only if our dad thought their President was a jerk.

Anyway, for the sake of not expending trillions in military costs, we do support the dictators who play nice with us. It maintains stability in the region and helps us track down the guys who would attack America. Unfortunately it sucks, pretty much universally, for the people who are subject to the authoritarian governments the U.S. backs.

What we're seeing here could be the dawn of a new era. Or it could go no further than Cairo. We don't know, and we can't take chances. Therefore the stance of the U.S. government thus far has been to insist there be a peaceful transition of power, condemn violence, and support the people's will to democracy. This is pretty much on-message with our publicly-declared foreign policy throughout history. Really the biggest surprise to me came in a press conference President Obama gave yesterday in which he called for Mubarak to step down immediately, not later as he has promised.

See, the thing is, if revolution does spread, fantastic. There's no greater moral victory for America than seeing democracy take root around the globe and dictators toppled by their own people. But if it doesn't work, or it doesn't spread, we can't be the ones who supported the people attacking the rulers we've so willingly played ball with in the past. There's a line we can't cross until the dust settles. Not only that, but any attempt to openly support the protesters is going to be played up as an attempt by the U.S. co-opt the revolution and manipulate it. Anti-American forces would leap all over it to undermine the roots of this secular, populist uprising and turn it into something which works in their favor. It's a chance we can't take. We have to let events play out and just let people know we're on the right side of history.

On the other hand, screw all that. America should be better than this in the first place. Obama made a speech in Cairo once about increasing unity between the Muslim world and the United States, and I say now's a great time to make good on it. There was an episode of one of those shows like the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits where two kids in an idyllic town find out that everything remains so perfect there because one person suffers unspeakable torment every second of every day, and in exchange everybody else lives in peace. It's a secret everybody knows and nobody talks about, because to do so would shatter their illusion of perfection. Well, we live in that world. America supports corrupt governments and oppressive regimes across the globe for the sake of our own people, and yet things are far from perfect. It seems like we're getting the short end of the stick with that bargain.

This is a sign that it's time for America to cast off ties with dictators, thugs, and bullies all around the world and start acting like we actually care about democracy. The people all over the Middle East are speaking, let's let them know we hear them. On that note -

Communication

When protests broke out in Iran over the disputed Presidential elections last year, the government cut off access to the internet. The result was pretty swift and painful - without solid communication, the protests grew less organized and quickly dissolved. Mubarak took a page from Ahmedinejad's book and closed down the internet in Cairo early on.

And it just made them angry.

So they've been attacking journalists. They've shut down Al-Jazeera (which I think anyone following the different coverages can now agree is probably the finest news organization in the world) in Egypt. They've done everything to keep the story from getting out and people from communicating.

Which is why Anonymous is using fax machines to send Egyptians Wikileaks cables about abuses of the Egyptian government. It's also set up free dial-up access to keep Egyptians connected. Egyptians are staying in touch through landlines, but also through the tried-and-true word of mouth that Mubarak seems unable to silence. After Tunisia, the genie is out of the bottle, and you can't get people to stop talking about it now.

So it seems even though the internet, including Facebook and Twitter, were instrumental in getting things off the ground, it's now capable of moving without them. This won't end without a resolution now. However, we can't ignore the part that mass media and the internet played in making all of this possible in the first place. How is it going to affect things in the future? If freedom of information reaches the Middle East, what will people do with the knowledge they're presented with?

These are our topics of discussion. I now cede the floor.

I love living in exciting times.

Boom de yada.

Snowpocalypse Affects the Brain, Apparently

2011-02-01T18:25:00.003-05:00

GW Parkway had a facepalm moment last week. If you live remotely in the DC area you remember that day last week when the foot of snow hit all of a sudden, all at rush hour, and every single commuter going in or coming out of DC had a 6-11 hour commute. (The 6 hour commutes were reserved for those lucky enough to live a mile or two from their places of work.)

And if you were unfortunate enough to be on the GW Parkway that day, you know that it came to a complete stop until about 4am the next morning. What you might not know is that the reason the traffic cleared up after 4am is because a lone police officer hiked two miles to the epicenter of the traffic jam and discovered one guy, stuck in the snow, who had eventually given up and gone to sleep. So, naturally, he banged on the window, woke the guy up, pushed him out of the snow, and singlehandedly cleared up what could have become a traffic jam of Chinese proportions.

And man, A+ to that officer, because WTF everyone else. I related this story to a coworker the next day, thinking only of the insanity of the sudden snowfall, and she shook her head and said, “These people have no survival skills.” And I realized immediately that she’s right. Because what were the twenty or so people directly behind this guy doing all that time? Did no one, over the course of ten hours, pop their head out their window and go, Hey what’s going on up there? Or if they did, did they see the guy stuck in the snow and go, Welp, nothing can be done there, I guess we live here now?

Seriously, what is wrong with those people. Even in the absence of curiosity or concern for what is going on in the world around them, where is the self-preservation that bands people together as a means to an end?

The answer is, apparently, nowhere. Everyone just sat in their cars and waited for someone else to fix the issue, because ten hours in, they were still so sure it would happen. I mean, I’m sure the people several miles back simply thought the road conditions were undriveable or there was an avalanche or a Land of the Lost-style chasm had opened up down front and they were stuck until road crews could get them out, as opposed to one idiot who decided to take a nap instead of get his damn car out of the snow.

But the driver of the offending car and the cars directly behind him? No excuse. It’s called being proactive. It’s called NOT being defined by the bystander effect. It’s called common freaking sense.

Congratulations, guys. You are an entire highway of asshats.

February GentleMonth: Livin' on Love

2011-01-30T09:00:00.007-05:00

Ah, the birds and the bees. Little naked cherubs. Hearts and diamonds (thanks, DeBeers). Love is in the air; it’s everywhere, and thanks to all this snow the northeast may find itself in a slight baby boom nine months from now. But for now, for this month, These Gentlemen are going to tackle the L-word head on.

That’s right boys and girls, GentleMonth is back, and all through February we’ll be discussing what is probably the most oft-discussed topic in the history of man: Luurrve. It's okay, we'll say it first.

So sit back, relax, and let the love wash over you. Gross, guys, not that kind. Okay maybe a little, if that’s what you really want.

Love and kisses,
TG

TG Goes to the State of the Union- I Mean GChat

2011-01-26T00:06:00.006-05:00

BEFORE
B.Graham: State of the Union haay

ali d: Yeahhh
ali d: I should probably listen
ali d: But I have more pressing matters
B.Graham: audition prep?
ali d: werd

B.Graham: Aw that's nice
B.Graham: They're leaving a seat open for Gabby Giffords
ali d: Awww
ali d: That is really nice
ali d: I approve
B.Graham: Also everyone was assigned a bipartisan date
ali d: Like someone they had to sit next to?
ali d: Do they have to put out?
B.Graham: lol I don't think they have to put out
B.Graham: But yes they have to sit next to them

B.Graham: I wonder if [boyfriend] is in the room
B.Graham: I don't see any suits and sunglasses, but they have to be in there
ali d: Oh man, your boyfriend is so cool!
B.Graham: I know :D

DURING
B.Graham: Look at Boehner's face
Max Nova: He doesn't need a death mask. They'll just chop his head off and put it in a museum

Max Nova: I love all the fake-listening-faces the congressmen have

Max Nova: There are gangs in Colorado!
Max Nova: My mind is blown
B.Graham: Yeah man what else are they going to do out there?
Max Nova: meth
Max Nova: meth meth meth
B.Graham: Also: The Outsiders takes place in Oklahoma... don't let the boonies fool you!
Max Nova: Good point

B.Graham: Man I didn't expect him to draw that line [regarding undocumented students]
B.Graham: Yeah Obama!
Max Nova: I just don't understand how people can believe in a god who only likes Americans born in America
Max Nova: We're such a weird country. I don't believe in god and I like all people
B.Graham: I know

B.Graham: Ginsberg is passed the eff out right now
Max Nova: There's always someone who gets caught
B.Graham: Also justices can do whatever they want
Max Nova: They are not wearing anything under those robes
Max Nova: Except for freedom

Max Nova: Dear god, Boehner, just clap for the fucking gays you dumbass
Max Nova: oy
B.Graham: He can't; he might have to let go of his ass

Max Nova: This is where Boehner is supposed to burst into tears....
Max Nova: Oh shit, Scranton!!!
B.Graham: lmao did Boehner and Biden just pound it??
Max Nova: Possibly
B.Graham: I hope so

Max Nova: I wish I had Chilean Miners on my SOTU bingo. I'd be on fire
B.Graham: lol
B.Graham: Such a cynic
Max Nova: Bingo is America!

AFTER
B.Graham: Ugh [Paul Ryan] had me until he started talking about the healthcare law
David Pratt: Yeah seriously. This guy.
B.Graham: Well not "had" me, but I was ok with it
David Pratt: His transcript is already up online so
David Pratt: I imagine he was just taking notes while the speech was happening.
David Pratt: And most of this was planned well ahead of time.
B.Graham: Yeah
B.Graham: He looks stoned

David Pratt: Nothing in this is actually reacting to the State of the Union.
B.Graham: No
B.Graham: Well what could he say? Obama was like, Yeah I love everybody
David Pratt: I guess that's their plan.
David Pratt: "This speech is gonna be pretty awesome guys so we gotta pretend it just didn't happen.”
B.Graham: lol
B.Graham: I have a crush on our president
B.Graham: I am biased
David Pratt: He's easy to crush on.
David Pratt: I don't blame you.

David Pratt: Okay
David Pratt: This stuff he's saying now is just rephrasing what Obama said.

David Pratt: And now stay tuned for Michele Bachman with the response from insanity.

The Hunger Games, Or How I Remembered I Love Reading

2011-01-25T19:14:00.004-05:00

I waited about a week to write this post, because if I had written it moments after I set the third book down, like I wanted to, this post would look a whole lot less like intelligent literary commentary, and whole lot more like EEEEEEEEOMGOMGOMGOMGPEETAMELLARKOMGGG!!!!! So I waited a bit, dialed down my fangirl, and now I can speak to you like a regular human being who was not raised by wolves or preteens.

Remember this post? Well I found it. This series reminded me why I love reading, and reassured me that there do exist new books (or rather, authors) that can sweep me away like my old standbys can. Needless to say, I highly recommend it. (It being The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins, beeteedubs. Look it up.)

I could gush on and on about the characters and the story, but I’m trying to spoil as little as I can, and what truly fascinated me was their world. So if you want everything to be a complete surprise when (WHEN) you read the books, stop reading now, but I promise to keep the plot points to a minimum.

The main character, Katniss Everdeen, lives in Panem’s District 12, in what was formerly called Appalachia in the former United States. I imagine it’s been about 200 years since the fall of our current society, but it’s never explicitly stated. The characters simply don’t know this kind of information, as anything not directly related to either their district’s given function or glorification of the Capitol is not taught. The twelve districts are each mandated with a very specific purpose for serving the wealthy, exorbitant citizens of the Capitol. Starvation is as common in District 12 as plastic surgery is in the Capitol. Sound familiar?

What struck me most was how vital television is to the everyday lives of the citizens of Panem. Television crews are a constant presence in the series, but in a much more recognizable way than, say, 1984 or Brave New World. The Hunger Games are essentially the ultimate reality show in which, as an annual reminder of the Capitol’s might, each district is forced to give one boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to the Capitol to fight to the death, for the viewing pleasure and horror of the citizens of Panem. If, in the Games, a child proves to be interesting or likable, the viewing audience can sponsor gifts of food or medicine to help keep him or her alive. If nothing interesting happens over a long period of time, ie. if no one dies in the course of a day or so, the Gamekeepers will create something in the arena to drive the kids together. It’s grisly, and oh so human. There is, of course, the constant reminder that everything in this world has actually happened in the realm of human history: There are currently hundreds of reality shows on the air in which people are hurt, physically and emotionally, for our entertainment. Ancient Romans made official sport (innumerable modern societies, unofficial sport) of watching conquered peoples, doubtfully any older than the kids in the Hunger Games, battle to the death. But it is not this world’s relationship with our history that I found the most interesting; it was its relationship to our present.

Even in the ensuing [SPOILER ALERT: but who didn’t see this one coming] revolution, reality TV plays a pivotal role for rebels and the Capitol alike. The most important battle fought is over the airwaves of the single Capitol-controlled television station, and in the heart of actual battle the main characters are most focused on winning over their viewing audience. And there continues to be an unwavering viewing audience; in the middle of a civil war, in the middle of chaos, it is a given that people stay tuned in to their televisions. In an increasingly image-based, privacy-less, information-barraged world in which kids are taught to market themselves from the moment they first set foot on the internet and revolutions are organized via twitter, this message hits home. If we were to fall into anarchy tomorrow, you better believe the internet would be the last thing to flicker out. Technology is our crutch and our ticket to freedom, our burden and our boon.

I’ll admit my bias: I have an affinity for young adult lit and social commentary, so this series was essentially written for me. But good luck not getting addicted to these books… and may the odds be ever in your favor.*

*Just read it. You’ll know what I mean, then.

Easing Into Pain

2011-01-13T00:04:00.001-05:00

I didn't start feeling the tragedy in Tucson until last night. I don't know why it took me so long, but it did. And it took other people's words to do it. Maybe I'm so used to hearing about it; so terribly used to only just getting emotionally past a national tragedy when another happens, that I'm numb. According to The Toilet Paper (my most reliable source of interesting information), there were seventy-nine mass shootings (defined as four or more victims) in the United States between 2007 and 2009. Seventy-nine mass shootings in two years, in one stable, first world country. That is so much bad news to take in, so often. It's no wonder I'm desensitized to the plight of my countrymen.

I pride myself in being an overly sensitive person. I can count on my hand the number of times I've killed bugs that weren't actively attacking me. I don't hurt things or people, and when things or people are hurt, even if I don't know them, my heart breaks afresh every time. Or it used to. I would like to think it still does, because I feel it now. I feel the loss of those poor people in the Safeway parking lot, and for their families. For the husbands who jumped in front of their wives, for the parents of that little girl at an age that I remember so well, for the fiancee of the young man, who can't even claim the badge of widow-hood.

It took others' words to do this to me, though. I was fully prepared to flit through the headlines like it was just another tragedy, as if something like that exists. Every tragedy is a complete and utter tragedy, and I almost forgot that, in the midst of my busy, fairly self-involved life.

First I read an account from one of my bloggers that I read regularly, Becca, and then I read our President's words in Tucson today. Both shook me out of my indifference; one of them made me cry. There is nothing I can do for these strangers in Tucson except feel their loss, and do all I can to send more love into the world, into the collective unconscious, and into my own daily life. So I guess that is what I will do. And encourage you to read the same words I read, and do the same.

A World With Only Violinists

2011-01-11T16:37:00.005-05:00

I haven't written in a while, but an article has been making the rounds about Chinese Mothers that merits a rebuttal.

If you haven't read it, do so now, it's worth reading.

A Chinese mother (who is also a law professor and author) writes about how strict she is as a mother. She defends how she only access As on her children's report cards, force them to play the piano (at one point to the point of child abuse), never allows them to watch TV or have boyfriends in high school, saying that this shows how much she and similar parents love their children.

The author mentions in the beginning that this style of parenting isn't exclusive to the Chinese and that all Western parents aren't failures. And there's not necessarily something wrong with parents driving their kids hard (if nothing else, Western parents dominate this when it comes to sports).

But there are some gaping problems:

A world of violins is a terrible thing. If the world consisted solely of parents like the author, it would be a world where children only played one of a few instruments. In this frightening world, everyone is going for a very small number of very specific brass rings. Sure, you'd have millions of absolutely world class violin players. But a parent of this model would ever let their kid play viola or bass, because they would essentially be saying "my kid's not good enough to play first violin" and to this writer, that's not good enough. And that's the end of string quartets. If you keep pushing then you wind up with no novelists ("Who would ever let their child study something a frivolous as literature?") no rock music, probably no modern art, etc etc.

The parents aren't all setting a perfect model either. In the article, the mother mentions getting in an argument at a dinner party about her guests. She also mentions that her children never had any play dates. That doesn't seem particularly fair, does it? Shouldn't the authors parents' be ashamed? She could be writing more articles and books when she's just sitting around at dinner parties and her kids are at home memorizing math formulas.

Denying failure won't make it not happen. By preventing their kids from ever experiencing the kind of things that will happen to everyone at one point or another (failure on a test, be it literal or symbolic, love and heartbreak, communal success) you are setting them up to flame out when they've left home. Here's a little Westernism that my parents taught me and my sister: "You can, and should, drink alcohol with a meal. The two go together." Too many households treat their kids as if the merest touch of alcohol on their lips will lead them straight to Gomorrah. It won't, but everyone will drink at one point or another, or have sex at one point or another, or rebel at one point or another. It's not bad parenting to prepare your children for adult life. It's good parenting.

The underlying subtext of the article is - "Fuck everyone else's kids." By only tolerating your children as the best at everyone, you wind up going down a slippery slope. It's this pervasive attitude of "I can do it, why can't you" or "I've gotten this far with only so much support, why should anyone else have more" that is poisoning Western debate about things like health care. Just because you've gotten yours doesn't mean that everyone else should be left behind. NOT EVERYONE IS THE SAME.

I could on and on, but you get the idea. Not everyone is the same, and parents endlessly pushing their children won't lead to a utopia. It will lead to a miserable world that I would not want a part of.

New Year, New B

2011-01-03T23:52:00.004-05:00

I blogged last year about my love for New Year’s; the starting over of it all. I made my resolution; I sort of kept it. I say sort of, because how do you really measure “be aware of the time I’m spending?” I have some great memories from this year, and I think I made more active decisions this year, regarding life choices. Sooo okay I’m going to give that one to me, what the heck. It’s a new year.

I am 55% excited and 45% terrified about my resolution for this year. It’s simple, concise, easily measured, but it’s also one of those mythical BIG STEPS INTO ADULTHOOD that could make or break my spirit if I don’t succeed.

I am going to finish all my started projects this year.

Okay looking at it on paper (screen?) kind of takes away from the drama, but this is a Big Deal. It came to me, as if in a dream, a few weeks ago when the realization basically punched me in the face: I have never finished anything that did not have a specific deadline. In my entire life.

I have sewing projects from the 6^th grade, originally meant for friends that I moved away from but to whom I now hardly speak. I have two novels (short stories? er, free form poems?) that I have not touched in over three years. I have scrapbooks, frames, a Rosetta Stone, pictures, and sewing alteration projects galore collecting dust in the closet in our second bedroom. I hardly finish my meals; I always seem to have something terrible rotting in the fridge that I was totally going to reheat/bake/chef my little heart out, but never got around to it. I currently have five black bananas in my freezer, just waiting to one day be reincarnated into banana bread. If I can ever wrench them from the shelf, that is.

I’ve been told that I am this way because I am an artist; I have too many huge ideas and a too short an attention span before the next big creative wave. And I totally bought into it, for years, bought into the whole “messy artist” persona: the absentmindedness, the clutter. But that kind of thinking does me (and the neat freak* who somehow persists to love/live with me) a great disservice.

My little apartment holds twenty-four years of big ideas, projects, and life-changes gone unfinished. Where does that put me, in the grand scheme of things, when the only artist I know of who truly gets away with unfinished work is Tupac? And I mean, I feel pretty good about the quality of work that I do, but I am not Tupac. This is something that I know.

So this year I am finishing projects. All the ones I started long ago, and all the ones I will start in the future. Maybe along the way I'll learn how to manage my time, or how awesome it is to actually finish stuff. Though I have to admit, those two foreign concepts sound a little crazy to me. But I am excited. And I am about to get real crafty.

Finished products from B.Graham? I hope the world is ready.

*I feel I should mention that he read this and insisted that the "freak" bit is an untruth.

Old Acquaintance

2010-12-29T16:53:00.001-05:00

Lest you believe we thought the holidays were over after Christmas.

The New Year is a holiday with an interesting metaphor behind it. As we celebrate the birth of a new year we simultaneously mourn the passing of another. When midnight strikes on December 31st, everything 2010 could have been will fade into the realm of never was, but everything 2011 might be will become possible. This funeral and birth bring the hopes and dreams of everything we now have 365 days to accomplish to the forefront of our minds. We make resolutions on the grave of the old year, swearing we will do better this time around. The year is a living thing to us, representing not a measure of time but an avatar of hope, one which we are, sometimes desperately, counting on to come through for us.

For the purposes of this commentary, I will stay away from assessing the usual suspects of resolutions; changes in body and mind, success in love and business, taking chances you promised to take the year before. I would like to believe that this year everyone will put forth the effort to get what it is they want from life. So, I will refrain from discussing the more serious nature of self-improvement and taking action in the new year and instead focus on the day itself, and the proper, gentlemanly behavior one should exhibit upon ringing it in.

Please note: College students should feel free to disregard the following.

Getting Friends Together

So, it is New Years Eve and you want to celebrate. Capital! But you can't celebrate the New Year alone, that's a sad testament to how the old one treated you. And probably a few before it. To that end, you need friends to celebrate with! Wait, there's a decision to make here. Do you throw your own party or seek out one being propagated by others? Keep in mind that if you decide to host your own event, there will be many other soirees competing for attendance. Here is a quick right and wrong example of how to invite people over to yours in light of this fact.

The Right Way:

Hello friends! I certainly understand that you likely have many parties to attend this New Years Eve, but I do hope you'll make time for mine! Spirits and snacks will be served, and all are welcome to partake. See you then!

The Wrong Way:

Come to the best fucking party this year is going to see!!! The other parties like the one Roger is throwing are lame bullshit and will suck, I know because Roger is a douchebag who fucking steals girls YOU KNWE FOR THREE YEARS I WANTED TO ASK HER OUT ROGER. I DONT EVEN WANT THAT SLUT NOW AND I DON't WANT TO SEE THE FUCKING VIDEO QUIT ASKING. So fuck Roger, come to my place and get hammered. Bring your own booze. Peace!

So as you can see, spelling and punctuation are an important part of getting people to think about stopping in to celebrate with you. When people see you've taken the time to attend to details, they will be more apt to choose your party as the place they want to be. Which brings us to . . .

The Celebration

Now that we have our friends together, either at your place or at a friend's house, we have hours to kill in the time before we watch the ball come down in New York City, marking another successful voyage by the Earth around its closest star. As a party host, the Gentleman puts out a spread his guests can be happy with. Snacks should be varied and plentiful, and include the standard dips and garnishes a party guest expects. There is no need to break out the fine china or order caviar; provide within your means and chances are everything will go smoothly. What will matter the most is your conduct.

Like I said earlier, New Years is a special balance of time, an observance of both birth and death. Both usually involve the imbibing of alcohol, and this is no exception. So whether at your own place or celebrating with someone else, there are certain lines which should not be crossed.

Moderation is key. Participate in a toast at midnight, and perhaps nurse a drink during some casual conversation regarding the weather or local sporting teams, particularly the inferiority of rival clubs. By the end of the evening you should be pleasantly warmed, but neither tipsy nor drunk. Maintain your dignity. Remember, you are both observing a birth and attending a funeral. Make a positive impression. Here are some key guidelines to observe;

1) Most people will be there with their significant other. As such, advances are most likely unwelcome, no matter how sure you are that they were totally checking you out.

2) In the event you are certain a fellow party-goer IS romantically unattached, do not assume that your level of attraction to the opposite sex correlates with how much alcohol you consume. By the same token, please try to bear in mind what that person looked like before you started drinking in the first place.

3) If liquor is provided, it belongs to everybody and should be distributed evenly. Look around the party. If you are three times as drunk as everybody else, you have wronged two people there. If you are three times as drunk as everybody else combined, you may want to consider arranging transport to a hospital. Before doing so, do ensure that you have all the clothes you came in with, and that you're still at the right party.

4) Generally speaking, no amount of nudity is considered acceptable.

5) Never, ever throw up on anything that has a soul.

Midnight

The time comes for the ethereal transition from one year to the next. No one can really describe it, but there is a definitive feeling, perhaps a subconscious realization of the fresh start we face, as soon as the clock hits midnight. People toast, loved ones share a kiss, and we begin anew. This is a critical time, as there are customs to observe and any gentleman will be mindful of them.

If you are in attendance by yourself, it is traditional to take part in the New Years toast, which will be given by the host. If you are not the host, do not assume it is your right to include your own toast or talk over the host as they are delivering it. Even if the content is lackluster and you just know everyone is secretly groaning inside and hoping someone speaks up to liven this thing up with a toast about excessive consumption and sexual promiscuity, I ask you to refrain. On that subject, if by some chance you are asked to provide the toast, keep the company in attendance in mind when considering how many references to specific examples you intend to cite.

On the subject of the customary kiss. This is to be performed exactly at midnight with your significant other. Like with most things, there are careful rules to abide by when the clock tolls 12. First, and most importantly, make sure the person you're with actually is your loved one. Details like this are crucial towards making a positive impression on other party guests, and in most cases your actual partner will not look kindly on such an error on your part. Second, a New Years kiss is given a wider berth than most public displays of affection insofar as being extended or passionate without being inappropriate. This only extends so far, however. Please refer to rule #4 under the section on celebrating.

The New Year

So the people are assembled, the midnight hour has come and gone, and you are now at a party whose reason for being ceased to be. If guests are enjoying themselves, chances are they will linger for awhile longer. This creates several possible scenarios depending on if you are host or guest. If it is the latter, it is your responsibility to judge what is a reasonable time to bid your polite farewell. When you decide the time is right, give your respects to your friends, provide a final Happy New Year, and leave under your own power. A successful egress lacks both slurring, staggering, and, if at all possible, racial epithets.

Stay no longer than you feel welcome. In the event you have passed out, it is courteous to have made arrangements in advance to have someone collect you in case of such an instance. If this was induced by liquor rather than exhaustion at the late hour, please keep Rule #5 of celebrating in mind, and be mindful that this extends to family heirlooms which may be haunted.

Now as the host, it is your duty to make sure that people enjoy themselves while still being mindful of your responsibilities in cleaning your home and going to sleep at a reasonable hour. Should you find guests not receiving your subtle clues about the hour growing late, it is within your purview to simply let people know it is time to go. Should you hope to host such an event again, please do not include swearing, threats, or, if at all possible, racial epithets.

Once the party has ended, revel in the knowledge that everyone has had a good time, and you have both ended one year and begun another on the right foot. Surrounded by friends, filled with good cheer, and happy. Above all else, be happy, because no matter what happened in the previous the year, you are now off to a fresh start, and anything can happen.

Enjoy your revelry, and remember auld lang syne.

Happy New Year.

Happy Holidays

2010-12-25T02:48:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, as I am wont to do, I ventured to my local comic shop and then crossed the street with my super-heroic bounty to read them at Starbucks. Upon ordering my usual hot chocolate, the barista offered me a jolly "Merry Christmas" to go along with my beverage. For half a second, I entertained indulging myself in an "I'm Jewish" simply for the sake of his reaction more than any offense. I stopped myself because it only took that half-second to realize the man across the counter had given me more than perfunctory holiday greeting, he actually infused some spirit into it. He was giving me his well-wishes, and with a smile, I thanked him and returned the sentiment.

It's been too often in recent years I've heard this debate raging over the proper greeting for others in this age of diversity awareness and political correctness. Trying to force your viewpoint of the holiday season onto the way people act around you is wholly opposed to what this time is about. No matter what you observe, be it a major holiday or minor observance or even nothing at all, you must acknowledge that this is a time, once a year, when people try to be a little kinder to one another. For example, on the way to my girlfriend's house to spend time with her and her family for Christmas, I restrained myself from slowing down and flipping the bird while having brights flashed at me as I went 70 in a 55. So, you know, little things.

The point being, no one owns this time of year. The closeness of mankind which the holiday season espouses is about the whole of mankind - not just the sects of it which believe the same things you do. When someone tells you "Merry Christmas" take it for what it is - well-wishing. A sincere and honest hope that this time of year turns out well for you. If you don't observe, so what? Does that mean you should be offended that whoever told it to you hasn't taken into account that your religion doesn't overlap with theirs? No, come on. Be serious here. By the same token, if someone tells you "Happy Holidays," don't insist they say "Merry Christmas." Not everyone celebrates Christmas, and you can't insist that they do. That's pretty contrary to the whole idea of inclusion and togetherness, isn't it?

This time of year holds meaning to practically every major religion in the world. Whether it be the necessity of community for survival in harsh months or actual divine intervention bringing about a reason for observance, winter has brought mankind together. So the next time someone gives you some sort of seasonal greeting, be it "Merry Christmas," "Happy Holidays," or "Festive Solstice," appreciate the sentiment behind them if not the words themselves.

Which is actually a pretty good segue way into my next point. The spirit of this season, the whole notion behind it, is to be thoughtful. The point of this entire time of year is thoughtfulness, but giving is a part of that as well. In our commercialized society, we see this reflected in the influx of advertising from retailers trying to convince us that their hot ticket item is THE hot ticket item. We buy into this exactly how we're supposed to, which leads to incidents like a Wal-Mart employee being trampled to death by shoppers breaking down the doors on Black Friday. Indeed, that is hardly an isolated incident. Even in cases not resulting in fatalities, the rage, jealousy, and greed which accompanies this time of year does a disservice to the holiday spirit.

There's no restraint in our culture, no sense of morality infused with our need to have things. The truth is that the spirit of giving really doesn't matter much if you do it without thought behind it. I was more thrilled by a set of pencils my girlfriend gave me for Hanukkah than any latest video game or other expensive trinket she could have offered me because she laid out her entire gift scheme to be one showing forethought and planning. She took time to do more than look at something she'd seen advertised somewhere and say "boy, commercialized America makes me think David would really like this." She saw the work I've been doing over at The Backlog (the finest blog about unplayed video games which also has comics on the internet today) and, through her gifts, let me know she supports me every step of the way.

Giving is not about procuring some hard-to-obtain item. It is not about flaunting your wealth or generosity. The idea of giving a gift is about putting thought behind it, in saying through some small gesture or token that you listen to what your gift-receiver is saying, you pay attention, and you believe in and support them. Holidays are about faith in a higher power, but in giving we can show our faith in one another. Now don't get me wrong, there are some great gadgets and toys out there which would make a lot of people happy to own. However, the thing commercialism has taken from us the most in this respect is our creativity, our thoughtfulness. Instilled in us instead is the idea that spending enough money will somehow make everybody happy.

Holidays are about togetherness. They're a time for family, friends, and loved ones. Whether you're in church, at home, or at the movies, we seek to be with others at this time. That makes us happy. What lifts our spirits and infuses us with the joy of the season is the people around us and the things they do and we do for them. Gifts are an accentuation, a supplement, not a dire need. Sometimes, just the sincere wish of "Happy Holidays" can get the job done. If you want to show you care in a deeper way, it doesn't take waiting in line at 4AM to get into a store (though I've had people do that twice for me now and I hope they know I did appreciate it). It doesn't take an extravagant gesture or flashy gift. It just takes some thought, something you know you'll love to give as much as they will love to receive.

And finally, I'd like to share the one special prayer I made while attending Midnight Mass. I had no real desire to go to church, and, as I expected, I felt terribly out of place being the lone Jew in a gathering dedicated to the birth of Jesus. An unfair circumstance, now that I think about it, as Jesus himself had at least two others present at the actual event. In any event, my girlfriend has a deep and abiding faith which I greatly admire, and she let me know it would mean a lot to her if I came along. So I went, and while I was there I put aside the issue of faith and belief and the disappointed look I knew my mother was affecting 500 miles away without knowing why, and I just listened to the choir. I had gone there primarily just to hear her sing, but there's something about a choir I always love. The principle is the same across many genres, spiritual or non; voices raised together in harmony sound bigger, better, stronger than a single voice. And I know that even as these people are all united in their faith, they are divided by other aspects of life. They might have different upbringings, different jobs, different sports teams or life goals or political beliefs, but when singing, that all stops mattering. When you raise you voice with others, the power of it, the physically palpable wave of sound which washes over you, brings people together. That, I believe, is what the spirit of the holidays feels like.

So, as I sat inside the church, prayers and hymns I'm unfamiliar with echoing around me, I offered up one simple message to the Lord.

"God," I said, "thank you for Alison. And Merry Christmas."

He knows I'm Jewish and don't celebrate, but somehow I don't think that matters.

Christmas: Heavy on Santa, Light on Church

2010-12-23T12:48:00.001-05:00

Whenever people complain about how Christmas is too secular, too commercial, too consumerist, and that the country is going to hell in a hand basket because too many American families are missing the point of Christmas entirely, I think they’re talking about my family. Actually, I know they are talking about my family, because my family isn’t even the kind of family who pretends they’re going to go to church and then something something blah blah blah they couldn’t go this year because of whatever reason. We were never going to go, and if we were, what church would we attend?

My family is decidedly secular. Christmas, for us, has always been much more about gathering ‘round the fireplace and Santa and snowmen than little baby Jesus. And so when people rail against all the Americans who’ve lost their way, I guess they’re talking about us.

But I don’t think we have lost our way. (I guess technically, we never had it.) Christmas today in America is mainly about family, and togetherness, and yes, giving. (Getting is, of course, a byproduct of the giving, but that’s the fine print.) My family celebrates all of those things. I can’t wait to come home to my parents’ house for some home cooked meals, some Christmas Vacation, and (hopefully) seeing the faces of my loved ones light up when they open that just-right present for which I scoured the mall or amazon or etsy for days.

We, as people, need tradition. It makes us feel good to get together and do the same ritual every year that we’ve done since we were kids, that our parents and their parents did before us in only slightly different ways. In our workaholic society we need an excuse to leave our jobs and the everyday prattle of our own lives to go and just hang out on the couch for a couple days with our parents without feeling like we should be *doing* something.

I have a good friend at work who is Indian, and decidedly not Christian, but she still wanted to decorate her cube for Christmas. I was taken aback; I guess I’m so used to hearing that everyone should hate on Christmas because it stomps all over all the other holidays (which, admittedly, it does) that it took me by surprise. I asked her why, and she just told me she doesn’t care what the religion associated with a tradition is, she just loves festivals, and celebrating with other people. As a person who has been to my share of religious and cultural events that I’m technically not a member of, I love that. I’m not saying, of course, that everyone should just drop their traditions and celebrate Christmas with all us secular heathens and/or evangelist Christians, but I like the sentiment. It could probably use some more use in our competitive my-religion-or-culture-is-better-than-yours atmosphere.

For whatever reason, the end of the year is when we celebrate togetherness and love and hope for a brighter future. Just because my family doesn’t go to church (neither a nor your) doesn’t make this time of year any less special for us. Any excuse to get off work and hang out with my family is good enough for me.

'Tis the Season to be a Gentleman

2010-12-22T15:11:00.001-05:00

The holiday time is upon us once more, coming around, as it seems to, at least once a year. Here at These Gentlemen, we've decided to take the time between Christmas and New Year's to express our own thoughts on the holidays, and how we can make it a more gentlemanly experience for all.

We're a somewhat diverse cast here at the blog. A few of us are Jewish, a few of us are Christian, at least one of us is an atheist. Max is kind of a hipster so he might observe Saturnalia since like, everyone else is just ripping off of them, man. We all observe our beliefs to varying degrees, but one thing we agree on is that this is a time of year when things are a little different.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that winter is a hot bed of activity for religious observation. It's harder to survive when the weather turns bad, which likely forced primitive man to group together in order to get by. From that early development of communal togetherness during the harsher months, we've grown into a society which has faiths around the world all observing something or another during this time. With that air of celebration, things can go very right or very wrong, depending on your approach.

So what does it mean to be a Gentleman during the holiday season? Where does this sense of community bring us? What are we doing right as a society, and where do we need to take a step back and apply a Gentleman's touch to the process? That is exactly what we'll be exploring here as the season reaches its peak, and we do invite you to join in our conversations.

In the meantime, a happy holiday to you and yours, and we look forward to you enjoying our season's offerings here at These Gentlemen.

Who Are These Gentlemen? And Other Philosophs

2010-12-15T09:00:00.000-05:00

TG is now two years old, which is fourteen in dog years, which is right smack dab in the middle of puberty for humans. And, like an adolescent gaining and shedding personalities with each new semester to either fit in or stick out (or, tragically, both), we're having a slight identity crisis... in the way that George Bluth may have committed slight treason. So we're going to try something else, something that will perhaps fit us, and you, better in the long run.

We met and talked for several hours Monday night, and the same question kept coming back: Who are we, exactly? What is it that we need to say and why do we need to say it? What does it mean to be a Gentleman on the cusp of 2011? As it turns out, we have some fierce opinions on that topic. So maybe These Gentlemen is exactly that: a small band of new adults looking around in shock and distaste at an increasingly mean-spirited, classless, un-gallant world. How does one live a gentlemanlike existence in the 21st century? Yeah, we don't know, either. But herein lies the blog.

We will be making a few aesthetic changes as well as the afore-mentioned philosophical shift:
We will no longer work on a weekly schedule basis, in the hopes that in turn we will deliver you more in-depth, interesting reads. We will also, in our new iteration, focus more on collaborative efforts like RoundTables, GentleMonths, and the like, making them the rule rather than the exception.

So please have patience with our growing pains. We're trying something new, but we think it could be a really good thing. And we hope that you think so, too.

To the Gentleman With Whom I Rode Home From Work Yesterday:

2010-12-14T22:50:00.000-05:00

I was just hoping you might consider that perhaps a crowded metro car is not quite the forum to pontificate your opinions on the uselessness of an English degree. While you may be positive that the person who convinced "all those kids" to major in English should be arrested, you might just be sitting behind a young woman who is very proud of her Bachelor's in English. A young woman who purposely chose to study both the English language and English literature, and is quite happy with her decision.

Now, your opinion is valid and you are more than welcome to hold it. I just hope that you realize that by loudly proclaiming it to your friend while among a group of strangers, you are taking the chance that you are going to offend someone. In fact, you offended me. By lambasting my path of study, you are not only making it known that you hold a differing opinion from mine, but you are insulting me directly for choosing it. And that, sir, is rude.

You seem to think that being an English major automatically means that our only job options involve an apron and a cash register. Sadly for the understaffed Starbucks of the world, English majors have the potential to go on to become teachers, lawyers, journalists, astronauts, CEOs, the Head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and oh yeah, Nobel prize winners in medicine.

And yes, sometimes we do wait tables to make ends meet while trying to kick-start our careers. But then again, we're in a recession, so there are plenty of business and engineering majors right there next to us.

So maybe next time you'll wait until you're in the comfort of your own home to be presumptuous, yes? I, for one, would appreciate it.

A Sports Question

2010-12-13T07:00:00.000-05:00

I don't have much of a deep thought today, but more of a hypothetical. I watched Tottenham v. Chelsea in soccer today and Redskins v. Buccaneers. Chelsea won their leagues last year. Redskins won the Super Bowl 18 years ago and have been a flawed franchise since then. Both had a pretty poor day, Chelsea drew, which extended their winless streak to over a month, and Redskins lost in rather spectacular fashion, blowing an extra point that would have sent the game to OT (also failed to stop a QB sneak by Tampa Bay and missing two easy field goals). [I do not support either team.]

All of that is a preface to wonder which is worse - supporting a mediocre team that blows it time and again, or supporting a very strong team that takes an extended dip in form?

I think the Chelsea fans are suffering more today, because they know they have a very expensive team that should be winning. I won't mention a certain player for the Redskins who benched for the season, but there's no question that things are more complicated in the NFL than simply outspending your opponents. Plus, few Skins fans thought they'd be challenging for the Super Bow this year. But, there's always next week.

Just a Thought about Reality Shows

2010-12-10T12:34:00.000-05:00

Go read Dave's post "Fallacies" if you haven't yet, it's much more weighty than this academic observation I've made:

Reality shows take place in the past.

Almost all of other storytelling formats - fictional TV, movies, novels, plays, even some documentaries - take place in the "literary present." Because fiction is made up and never actually happened, it "is happening" whenever you watch/read it - even if the setting is historical.

Reality shows, however - the kind that simply follow (and impose through judicious editing a narratife structure upon) the lives of various interesting individuals and pseudo-celebrities - can not take place entirely within the "literary present." Why? Because the lives of these real people continued after the show was finished being filming, and still continue to this day (or at least until their death). There is, in other words, story outside of the "story." A reality show, in this sense, is much more like, say, a show on the History Channel - a narrative imposed on the past - than it is like a scripted drama.

Sure, reality show producers enforce a code of silence on their subjects and crews to prevent the viewers from learning about the intervening history, but no matter what they do - particularly in the case of public figures who we are already aware of (like Marion Barry) - those peoples' lives continued after filming was done.

News programs, by contrast, take place in the actual present (excepting a trivial reporting delay). Documentaries either fall into the review-of-the-past type and are thus similar to reality shows as mentioned, or are stories imposed on random subjects in a version of "literary present." (Like the Earth series.)

However, unlike history shows, reality shows seem claim to be "literary present" because of the way they are shown; and unlike documentaries that are current but become dated, reality shows were dated from the very moment they aired.

(Note that this does not apply to some genres of reality shows, mainly contest-type ones like Top Chef, which, like game shows, take the contest [with its clear beginning-and-end] as their subject; since the contest ends with the show, it doesn't have the same issue with meta-show continuing lives as, say, Real World or The Osbournes.)

There has always been, for me, a slightly uncanny or awkward feeling to watching person-based reality shows, and I think this is something to do with it.

Some literary theory ruminations for your Friday morning!

I'll Never Ignore the Perfume Lady at the Mall Again

2010-12-09T20:42:00.000-05:00

This is a shout out to all of the people who are nice to the men and women who work at kiosks throughout the world. Thanks for realizing that I'm just doing my job. I promise that I'd rather not be asking you if you'd be interested in winning a new car or $25,000 today, but whether I like it or not, it's a paycheck. And I enjoy it when you stop to chat with me for a few minutes. Otherwise it's a long 8 (or 10 or 12) hours sitting on my stool.

So thanks for not completely ignoring me when I ask how your day is going. Thanks for acknowledging me even when you don't want what I'm selling. I really appreciate it.

(Be looking for a more substantial bonus post from me over the weekend, folks! But today's been a long one, and I think I'm just going to kick back and watch Castle if you don't mind. Thanks for understanding.)