This is actually not really news.  The UK Daily Telegraph released the details in an article in August, 2009.  A local tribal leader saw the kidnappers crossing the border from the Iran side, and noted cell phone records of the call that alerted the kidnappers to the hikers presence. The article also notes that, at that moment, the tension between the US and the Iranian government was high because of US protests of the 2009 election in Iran.

So, why didn’t this information come out in the US before? Iran covered up this information and their official story was to allege that the hikers crossed the border and were going to be tried as spies.  Anyone that knows Sarah, Josh or Shane, is aware that this is complete B.S., but maybe this is the only way for Iran to save face keep them in Evin.  I am guessing here, but my sense is that there has been a tension between using official means to try and release the hikers and using the media to build public support.

I am still speculating when I suggest that nobody really knows WHY Iran is holding the hikers and this is responsible for creating this tension.  Is it because of the protests that the Daily Telegraph mentions? If so, why do they continue to hold them, wouldn’t this only strain the relations further? Is The Iranian government waiting for an opportunity for an exchange? (This came up in the media throughout the time that the hikers have been held. Most recently, it was  reported in February  that Ahmadinejad proposed a prisoner exchange and then, earlier this month, that Iranian officals said it is not in their practice to “exchange people”.) Is Ahmadinejad just looking for a way out that he can save face?

So because nobody knows why they are actually being held, since they are clearly not spies and clearly did not cross the border, it is completely unclear what the right tactics are to pursue their release.  As has been stated by the Free the Hikers campaign many times, this is a historically safe area.  It has only been within the last month that tensions between Iran and Kurdish rebels have begun heating up.  The border crossings of Iranian troops were distinct enough to be newsworthy. Outside magazine notes that Europeans and Americans regularly travel in this area and that at peak times, this trail does have significant use.  The article also notes that Iranian-US relations are at an all-time low due to “Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denials and anti-Israel diatribes, the surging power of Iran’s anti-Western Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the regime’s suppression of the country’s pro-democracy movement”.

It seems that the few hateful American’s that post comments saying that they deserve their fate for being so stupid may be the only ones that have ever thought that their jailing makes any kind of sense.  And now, with the public release of this border information, not only can I send a big FU to those self-righteous people, but it is the final piece of a puzzle that points to the fact that is was not a stupid mistake that the hikers are paying for, but is instead an international hostage situation, and one that has been downplayed for too long.

But here’s the rub, and how the situation is turned upside-down version of  a simpler hostage situation.  The hikers “are the opposite of ugly Americans” (as Outside puts it). They can’t be held up as models of imperialism. Instead, they are warm and generous people wanting to bridge gaps between cultures and advocate freedom, information and education for everyone.  They are pro-Palestinian.  While it would certainly be a stretch (and an incorrect one at that) to say that they are supporters of Ahmadinejad’s, they are not even close to his worst enemies and  are even farther from being enemies of the Iranian people.

Because of these personal qualities and the consequential journalism, teaching and activism that they have done here in the Bay Area and internationally, I have hope that international allies in Europe and the Middle East will step up and ultimately mount enough public pressure to lead to their release.

ShareThis

Unfortunately, any signs that give hope of their possible release are rare, indeed.  The hope that the supporters have is vitally necessary and mostly self-generated.  Because they are being held in a culture so foreign to our own and because the families and supporters of Sarah, Shane and Josh are not government people, it is hard to know what to make of anything that happens here or there or in between.   Is our government giving the families the whole story about negotiations?  Will the mom’s emotional and spiritual appeals for reunification help?  What do Iranian holidays mean to them and could that help their release?  How does their release relate to the political situation of Ahmadinejad both domestically and internationally?

I think that the possible answers to these questions have all changed over time and continue to change, sometimes daily.  The campaign has had to take every opportunity to appeal on a heartfelt and personal level for the hikers release.  And this is the kind of people that they are, the families and Sarah, Josh and Shane….heartfelt and personal.

I bring this up because Iran has alleged that the hikes have some sort of ties with the US intelligence.  This is absolutely ludicrous and I want to tell you a bit more about how I know them.  I should back up and say that I only really know Sarah and Shane and Sarah’s mom, Nora. I know that the only ties they may have to US Intelligence are to be in their watch list files.

Although I am not aware that Sarah and Shane have ever broken the law, they are an important part of my community, which is an anti-governmental anarchist community in one of the most left-leaning areas of the US.  And most of us are probably in those files because we actively organize for a world with social justice and anti-imperialism,which we believe is antithetical to most of the US governments actions.  To any patriot out there saying, “The US government is the greatest system in the world”, I respond that I realize the US government stands for a lot of great ideals, but they are long transformed into a mere symbol that no longer relates to the system.  Okay, but back to the subject, to put it simply, US intelligence doesn’t actually like us because if most of us had our ways, there would be an overthrow of their damn system.

When I met her a number of years ago, I had been hearing about Sarah “Bean” for a while, maybe a year. She lived with friends of mine at a house that is associated with The Midnight Special Law Collective. Take a look at the logo featuring a dead justice system, a monkey wrench.  If you read the text of the website, they are working to legally support civil disobedience.

I ended up meeting Sarah’s mom, Nora, first.  I was involved with an adult anarchist education project. We sponsored a community-based earthquake preparedness workshop and organizing meeting that Nora and I both participated in.  We talked about having central houses for communication and a central store of supplies in every neighborhood.  We envisioned setting up short-wave radios so that those houses could communicate with each other. We looked at mapping those neighborhoods so that we could check up on each other and offer mutual aid.

So, you see, I am not trying to say that we are a community of hooligans or even simple rabble-rousers (although we are certainly to some degree rabble rousers).  We are a community that is serious, thoughtful and organized.  We run some long standing institutions like a dojo, non-profits and worker collectives. We are sometimes parents, union members, teachers, musicians, artists and writers.  We come from many traditions, including an intellectual anarchist tradition.

I suppose that the one remaining possibility is that Sarah (or Shane) is a mole, a government informant or something.  Well, she is not. I know this because I know her family and I know her life. When she wasn’t doing political work, she was learning massage and teaching English and spending intimate time with her friends.  She wasn’t someone that lived in isolation and could trade her business suit for a black hoodie to show up and infiltrate a meeting. She had long standing accountability in her life. Her life was intermeshed with other lives, the lives of her family and friends.  Because of this, to varying degrees, pieces our lives are on hold until Sarah is back and for some, their lives have been transformed into a project of getting Sarah back.

ShareThis

1.  The opposite of a fair-weather friend, a foul-weather friend only seeks you out if they have a problem, need a shoulder to cry on, a ride to town or someone to watch their dog, but otherwise they act as if they don’t even know you. They’re only your chum when they’re glum.
2. A foul-weather friend is someone who likes to be around you when you are unemployed, depressed and in the dumps. He/she feels sorry for you, and gets some pleasure out of feeling superior, handing out advice, berating you for having a bad attitude. As soon as you get out of the slump, get a job, get in shape, get a decent place to live, etc., the fair weather friend is jealous, and stops speaking to you.

J-  and I thought that we had made this term, but after Topeka’ing it (lol), it appears to not be our original idea.  We invented it for a friend who I would go for years to months without hearing from until she was released from the institution, losing her apartment or getting broken up with and then she would appear.  Well, I have become a sort of opposite version of a foul weather friend in the fact that my friends and acquaintances seem to be engulfed in crisis and I am wanting and feeling compelled to show up for them.

So, I have been thinking about this fact. I have many friends that live poor (by choice or not), many friends that are queer/single or not in traditional relationships and also among folks that do participate in more risky lifestyle choices.  Also, activists and radicals are less likely to devote adequate resources to their health (myself included), whether that means things like exercising and eating well or having health insurance.  We are also just plain and simple getting older, which increases our risk for disease and complications.  Most of the time, these things do not effect anyones life too much (and especially mine), but the moment seems to be a convergence of folks in need.

A friend to all is a friend to none. – Aristotle

Okay, but the last part. Why so much going on and going wrong and why do I sometimes feel like I want to take it all on?  Is it that I have lots of friends (423 by Facebook’s count) and am grounded in a community where I have known most of those people for 5-20 years?  Is it because I spent time working on mutual aid projects and am in a caregiving profession?  I sometimes wonder if it has become a dysfunctional part of my identity. Of course it feels good to help and be available and it is also sometimes a relief to focus on someone else’s problems.  Some of it is wanting to give back for those many bits of help that I received when I was poor and when we had the kids and any little bit of help made so much of a difference.

I suppose what feels most notable about this moment is that I cannot keep up  with the demand that I perceive.  There is more need that I can provide and this makes me feel a bit sad and hopeless. It makes me wonder if this marks a downturn that will continue for the future.  It is forcing me to pace myself and recognize my own self-care requirements (and the importance of them).  It is also forcing me to make choices that I would rather not make.

ShareThis

The best unexpected pleasure has been finding those Facebook connections that work, and prove to be a very particular kind of connection.  And interestingly, they are not always the same of my friendships that work.  There are several folks with whom my acquaintanceship with has not had the opportunity to advance to a deeper friendship, probably for logistical reasons mostly.  They are on Facebook regularly and my fondness for them has grown as has their impact on my life.  I have read books by their favorite author, followed the comments on their status updates and gotten and received advice and parenting, running, cooking, etc.

Lets Keep it “Secret”

There was recently a rash of groups started and joined called “Secret X” with X being a city name. I admit that I initially joined Secret Oakland, thinking, “Great!  A place to find out what is going on off the beaten track.”  As Secret City groups continued popping up and more of my friends started joining them, I started to get a little annoyed.  Not that I wouldn’t want most of my friends to be a part of all of the secret things in my life… It is more that I would rather with those friends be invited to an event, find a restaurant or see a show that doesn’t have a psuedo-countercultural vibe all over it, while it is all over the internet at the same time. I went back and looked today and it did turn out that the group had turned into something that is not about secrets at all, but about the “Best place to…” which doesn’t seem any different than yelp or the East Bay Express.

This was shortly after the last of the many updated screen formats (which they still haven’t gotten right) and the first time that I started to question my intentions and use of facebook instead of just coasting and enjoying it. I started thinking about having some boundaries around how much I am on it and what I use it for. The simple time equation of the elusive Facebook time versus practicing guitar, exercising, spending time with friends and family is pretty convincing some days.  I have no clear answers yet, just still thinking.  I quickly dropped most of my fan pages, I am no longer a fan of “not being on fire” or “If 1m people join, girlfriend will let me turn our house into a pirate ship ” and I am also not imagining that Facebook groups are exerting any sort of political pressure.

Fuzzy boundaries

As I mention above, Facebook has become an internet hub for me. I love the idea of consolidating my goodreads account and my invitations with Facebook and seeing what people think about the movies that they are seeing.  I mean, why use 10 websites when you can use 1?  Well, for a couple of reasons.

The amount of time that it would take to follow all of these things for all of my friends is outrageous. Actually, the amount of time that I already spend online and on Facebook is pretty outrageous. And the more that I post or repost, the trickier things may get with the accuracy and privacy of my friends, as well.

As these things have begun appearing in my Facebook feed and I have been getting comments on them, I am not sure that I want to put myself out there so much.  Not only are my friendships an interrelated web, but I have varying levels of shared friends, intimacy, and comfort with these friends. These factors are not always related and they are always changing. Partly because I have such a range of friends and I do not want to have the same conversation about X movie with A that I do about Y movie with B.  So I have had odd feeling when seeing a comment from someone that I don’t know very well on my rating of a movie that I saw recently.

Virginia Heffernan writes on nytimes.com:

…Facebook undermined his whole notion of online friendship. “It’s easy to think of your circle of ‘Friends’ as a coherent circle, clear and moated, when in fact the splay of overlap/network makes drip/action painting a better (visual) analogy.” Something happened to this drip painting that he won’t discuss. He said, “Postings that seem private can scatter and slip unpredictably into a sort of semipublic status.”

Maybe most importantly, the defaults of Facebook are to share everything rather than nothing.  Unless you dig through the settings (which involves being somewhat computer savvy) you will have no privacy and every post from every person and every application will show up in your feed. Do I want to think everytime I rate a movie or mark a book “to read” whether I want all 420 of my friends to see this?  Do I want to be the person that is always nagging my friends with unwanted applications and feeds?  I have recently been spending a fair amount of my Facebook time removing myself from groups and pages and hiding unwanted feeds to reduce the stuff that I sift through. I am hiding friends that I am not close to and blocking the applications that I don’t like.  It will be less work and mess for my friends the more I trim what I am putting out to them.  Am I not networked with everyone (and duplicating the posts of mine that they see) that wants to be on goodreads anyways?

Obligation + Overcommitment = Burnout

I think the nature of being a young, active person in the Bay Area is having too many choices and a struggle with overscheduling ourselves. In this way, Facebook is actually the perfect venue because there are plenty of things that my friends or myself are participating in that have an open invitation to go along with it.  Before I was on Facebook,  I rarely got more than 1 evite per month, but now I get multiple invitations per week and sadly, I end up turning almost every single one down.

I do not like to let balls drop and I do not like to not follow up on correspondence with people, but on Facebook, I have found it nearly impossible to keep my standards of communication up while still being friends with all the people that I have interest in. And I still have the balls in the back of my mind most of the time, S-’s wall post that I never responded to, that message that I never returned, etc…

In 2008, Business Week predicted Facebook Fatigue:

Social network fatigue will set in as people tire of getting yet another invitation from so-called friends to join yet another social network. And, in the wake of Facebook’s fumbled social ads initiative, it will become even more apparent there’s no obvious way to pitch products on these sites without turning off members. Social features will wend their way into all kinds of Web services, from search to news, but the gold rush in social networks themselves will begin to wane.

I think they are a few years too early on this. I think that for most people that I have heard about leaving Facebook it is because they aren’t getting enough out of it or because they are pissed off about something.  I do not yet think that social networking, in general, has worn its welcome. And actually, I think it will probably just continue to evolve in ways that make it more appropriate, secure and manageable for people.  I think that a few key players including Google, Wordpress and Facebook are pioneers for the future of the internet, which will be more and more the way that we manage our lives in the future.

So, I am not signing off of Facebook, although I do not feel trapped, I do feel invested in the virtual world that I have there.  But the conversation is just beginning…

ShareThis

I wonder if people in other states ask people where they are from all the time.  If you live in Illinois or Alabama, is it just assumed that you are from there?  Of course, here in California, most people are NOT from here, so that is a common conversation topic to get to know a new person.  That being said, I am often asked if I am from “here”, I think I must have enough of a California aura that people have a feeling.  I never quite know how to answer, in part because I am not sure exactly what it means to be from anywhere…and what does “here” mean to people?

So generally, I say “basically” then launch in to an explanation of what I mean.   “I was born in Santa Cruz, but mostly grew up in Sacramento.  I came to Berkeley for college in 1991 and have lived in the East Bay ever since.  I’ve lived in my current neighborhood since 1994.  My father and his mother were born in Pacific Grove, CA near Monterey. My father’s father was born in the Fresno area.  My mother was born in San Francisco and grew up on Sunnyvale, CA.”  My explanation is actually just many layers of demonstration that pretty much by anybody’s definition (except for the fact that I wasn’t born in Oakland), yes…I am from here.

I have never really known that much about my family.  We have a lot of fallen out parent-child relationships , bastard children, half-siblings and divorces.  My mother didn’t even know who her father was until a few years ago, shortly after he had died.  My paternal grandparents’ mobile home was destroyed in a flood in Soquel, CA in 1979, just after grandma had finished a family tree.  Family lore said that she had lost everything.

Apparently not all was lost. A few weeks ago, my brothers and I went down to Watsonville to go through the possessions that my father left behind.  There were a number of old photos and newspaper articles that we had no idea were in the family. Those remnants, along with all of the current technology has made reconstructing the tree my new obsession.  Some of the family lines are easy to follow, especially the paternal lines where there aren’t a lot of name changes.  In several places, I have been able to trace ancestors back to their arrival on the East Cost in the 1700’s.  This is helped by the fact that other people have done family trees on ancestry.com that I can glean information from.  Other lines, I am stuck at just a few generations back due to recent immigration or the presence of spotty records and multiple names.

Google has also supported my quest to get more information about my family, which is where I found the most exciting surprises. My great-grandfather (by birth, which is not my namesake), Andrew “Burt” Cudney had lived about 6 miles (as the crow flies) from where I live today.  I knew that he had been a ferry operator based on his clothing in a photo that I have of him. With a few google searches with variations of his name, I got several hits that panned out.

One was a San Francisco Call article where he is begging for a divorce from my great-grandmother, who was apparently crazy, like most women in my family.  He argued that she threw things at him and had cost him several jobs.  I found a patent for an automatic flash lamp attachment (he was a photographer) based in San Francisco in 1918.   Finally, I found a number of photos that he had taken that are now owned by the Oakland Museum.

I think I am drawn towards knowing more about him because he lived so close, although he is certainly the most controversial figure in that side of our family, which is intriguing, as well.  I have found nothing to sustain this, but rumor has it that Cudney died as a result of injuries sustained when taking a photo of one of the first cross-country flights landing.  Yes, he was hit by the plane.

ShareThis

Okay, I admit it. I have a dark side…it doesn’t take much for me to start envisioning large scale disaster scenarios, man-made or natural alike.  I don’t know where it comes from, maybe being allowed to watch really violent movies from a young age or from reading a lot of science fiction.  Top this with a college education focused on economic geography and critical theory meant that I kissed any kind of naivite away along time ago.   So, the last few months with water rationing, global food shortages, soaring gas demand, midwest floods and recent earthquakes, I immediately start imagining impending doom and gloom.  Now that I can smell the fires of the last few weeks…I can smell the doom and gloom; and I know that it is much worse where live.

When I saw Mark Morford’s SF Gate column, I was amazed that this kind of thinking made it to the mainstream press, although Morford does tend to be darker than your average liberal.  This kind of mindset has its advantages; I am very prepared…my earthquake kit is stocked and my gas tank stays 1/2 full.

Ironically, I actually think that my apocalyptic thinking comes from a place of hope and optimism.  I have always had trouble reconciling my radical utopian ideals with the process that will actually get us out of the mess we are in and into something better.  I have often considered mass destruction, either man-made or a series of catastrophes driven by nature to be the most likely “solution” to the question.

Of course, environmental and social problems are not the same.  I think that inevitably, they do have a relationship and my assumption is that they drive each other.  I often wonder; how bad can things get?  Not to say that they are bad for me, personally…on the contrary, but I am one of the last people that would be a victim of a systemic breakdown.  The do seem bad around me and moreso, they seem on the verge of getting really bad.  I wonder if my view of the current status of the world is egotistical and due to the fact that I am a product of the uber-materialistic Regan era.  For those who are closer to the Great Depression or the Holocaust, do things look so bad? 

This is not to say that I want mass destruction.  If I see it as the most likely way to the end result that I want, do I have to want the event itself? I don’t think so.  I see many downsides to catastrophe, including the potential for a Malthusian population cut.  I also don’t see a utopian, radical future as the most likely end result to apocalyptic events, there are a lot of other options that would be very ugly and are much more likely.

On the other hand, movements of ecological change and social justice may be taking hold on a larger scale.  Sometimes I think they are, other times I believe that I am in a small bubble of the world in which they are.  Most of the time, I am not really sure that it matters.  At this point, maybe these changes are just band-aids that are keeping the status quo while we progressively march to in inevitable revolution.  At this point, maybe it is just too darn late.

ShareThis

This blog is how I decided to replace that energy in my life. I have long wanted to write more and get back to my zine. I have always considered blogging a great method (if done well)–certainly to keep up a regular writing practice and keep the volume that I am writing high.  On the other hand, there is a lot that is off-putting to me about my political involvement in the world being rooted in words and the internet versus daily real-world interactions.

So, in turn, I have been thinking quite a bit about virtual space and the ways that I do and do not want to participate in it. I think that my whole concept of geography has been shifting. Overall, more and more of our cultures interactions are taking place virtually. This may be more or less true for certain subcultures, but as a whole…this is absolutely the case.  So although, it is not physical; this space does have geographic value.  In part, because the web adds so much to the equation of how things happen over space, which I consider to be a question of utmost importance.

What does this mean for the future of the internet? For the future of our social lives? For the physical space that we move through when we leave our computers? For our bodies and emotions?

 I often think about all of the things in my life that I wouldn’t have (or would be more difficult) without the internet, but I often forget to ask, what am I missing in my life because of the internet?  I am shocked to think of how long it has been since I have been to a library, for example.  I now drive more, work from home and use the internet more than I ever have and I randomly run into people much less than I ever have.  I also meet fewer people, and many of the contacts that I do have have moved away over the years.

I do not consider virtual interactions qualitatively equal to actual ones.  I do know people that feel more comfortable dealing with other people online and their complete social networks are built and maintained that way.  I think that it is aesthetically, I just can’t give that my rubber stamp…it seems wrong.  Yah, you pegged me….I was born before 1980, lol.

I often hear people making judgements about the internet, like “I think that geocaching is a great use of the internet,” or “I’ve decided that blogging is a complete waste of time.”  But, isn’t that like saying that your underwear is better than anothers or that sports are something that no kid should do.  Kinda arbitrary…

There seem to be two distinct areas of social networking–building and maintaining. To my parents, building a social network on the internet is off-putting. They don’t like the idea of internet dating, for example. This is the primary way that many couples that I know have met each other!

Many people that I know find maintaining social networks through the internet to be off-putting. It is one thing to have your social network facilitated by the internet, for example getting notices about upcoming shows or make plans by email. It is another to use the internet for all of ones social interaction. These are extremes, but I do know someone whose primary social network is composed of people that he has never actually met. Of course, there is also the phenomenon of people spending most of their time (and even having actual financial transactions) through virtual communities and games.

 I feel lucky that my social network is actually fairly wide. I do spend a great deal of my time on-line supporting this network. I do try to see the people that I know regularly, but I have come to realize over the last few years, that it would actually be impossible to see everyone that I want to see regularly without compromising some of the intimacy and regularity of my other relationships.  With some awareness that it was happening, I started following a rule around my friends; the closer they live, the more I see them.  This actually has been working for me very well.

I have always taken “non-intentional” community very seriously, even while I have been working on “intentional” communities and cooperatives.  I have always considered being place-based to be the primary consideration for happiness and sustainability.  The thing about the internet, though is that you can “see” folks that aren’t neighbors more regularly and the shape of space is morphed and becomes more a question of presence.

ShareThis

I have always been skeptical of green cars, maybe because I am grounded as a bike activist, an anti-car person, and I was still pretty attached to those ideas when cars started gaining in popularity as a form of ecological activism and collaboration.  Although I was skeptical, I really never did the work to justify my thoughts, so I always kept my mouth shut.  Luckily, my friend Alexis has done some of the work to articulate issues around biofuel use, specifically in relation to food production in his article on realitysandwich.com (I love that name!). 

He makes an argument that the current emergence of food shortage and threat of famine is an issue of wealth.  New shortages can specifically be linked to the increasing market demand for biofuels.  Even in historic cases of famines attributed to natural disasters, the famine-ravished countries have continued exporting food, while people within the country starved.   Traditional land used for food harvesting or native agriculture have been razed in most places to export to wealthier nations, in turn making the poor country dependent on cheaper, less nutritious grain imports.  This continues to be true, but now the international poor are also competing with  the automobiles of the wealthy for increasingly scarce calories. 

Then came along the Prius.  I had learned long ago that the most “environmental” way to own a car was to drive as little a possible and when behind the wheel to go gently and keep that car running in your own ownership as long as possible.  Somehow, I got turned onto an article that discussed the fact that a Hummer was more ecologically sound than a Prius (I can’t find the article that I read originally, but this is a newer one).  It came down to a few issues 1)The battery 2) The expected lifespan of the car (3 is outdated with the newer hummers, it was that the Humvee parts were stock parts and not specialty-made). 

Reducing our dependency on them and getting rid of cars (for the most part, at least) is the only thing that will solve all of the problems that we have because of them.  There may be accomodations that solve some of the problems or temporarily relieve the impact, but ultimately biofuels or any other modification to cars is going to be a band-aid. (I would make an exception for the one solar powered car that I rode in at Eastwind Community, but I actually think that biking was a more effective way of getting around and hauling.)

ShareThis

Our initial months as car owners were completely disasterous.  We were carjacked before we had even transferred the paperwork for our first car.  We had 10 days before we left town to buy another.  We found the perfect car at a great deal. We overpacked and overloaded the car. About 30 miles out of town, I lost control crashed and totalled it on the highway.  We just wanted to go home and never see a car again, but irreversible committments had been made, so we rented a mini-van and made our way up to Washington, where we bought our 3rd car in 3 weeks.

Although it took us a while to recover from the micro-traumas of what had happened, we loved the mountains of Washington and still think fondly of that time.  Gas prices were high, but since we were both driving for the first time of years, the prices didn’t hurt any more than the cost of having a car for the first time, in general.  Much like when I started driving in high school, our car opened up freedom to leave our regular life and explore.

When I returned home, I discovered that driving actually continued to offer me freedom. I became a regular visitor to parks that had been to far or difficult to visit regularly.  I was amazed that I could get to Fruitvale in less than 15 minutes, which I honestly thought was pretty far from my neighborhood. Friends made fun of me, saying that I was the only person that didn’t realize that public transportation took longer than driving.  Well, it wasn’t so much that, but I really didn’t realize HOW MUCH longer it took.

I went through a phase where I felt almost duped by pro-bike people. I had been convinced that I was more free on a bike, that having a car was something oppressive, that by driving, I would spend all of my time with road rage, looking for parking spaces, and sitting in traffic and inhaling exhaust.  This was not the case…I make my driving choices carefully and can get to most places that I want to go in 10-20 minutes and rarely have trouble parking.  Instead of bike touring, where I was still surrounded and threatened by cars, I was able to get into the forest.

Friends that I knew through biking had various assumptions and/or judgement around my use of a car.  One friend asked (when referring to a 3rd person) “How can someone call themselves  an environmentalist when they drive everywhere?”  Another asked if I was adding other things in my life to rationalize my use of the car, ecologically.

I realized at that point, that I no longer chose to identify as an environmentalist.  I had prioritized building my family by rescuing dogs, adopting kids and having a more balanced life.  I wondered if I was becoming a humanitarian.  As a “(many-things-can go-here)ist”, I was making esthetic choices that the world around me could never live up to. I felt that I was sacrificing, while I saw so many others still chose to “have”.  Making choices without an absolutist perspective has led to me being a much happier and healthier person without as much self-judgement, let alone judgement of others.

I still think that cars are “wrong” in a big picture. I still fantasize about being in an eco-city with fewer roads, better public transportation and, better yet, services that are in walking distance.  I also believe that I would put my money, my car, and my house where my mouth is if I saw that option.  On the other hand, I not yet missed the days of NOT having a car.  I am looking forward to the future that J- and I have planned and I see a car as realistically necessary to have that future.  

I absolutely do feel fearful, sometimes angst-ridden about what is happening to our world, socially and ecologically.  I do believe that we are headed for something catastrophic on both fronts and I think that energy consumption in all forms is integral, among other things to that crisis.  I also think that there are no easy answers and actually that the easiest is to start making individual choices to localize our lives and local efforts to de-auto our communities. 

ShareThis

That being said, there is always a different power in a message by someone that works from the inside to subvert an event or takes an expected role and turns it on itself. This is why culture jamming has become such an important method of media and protest in the last decade.

Enter Majora Carter, a South Bronx activist who was chosen to be a torchbearer in San Francisco. After she received the torch, she brought out a Tibetan flag, which she hoped to carry with her while she carried the torch. From news accounts, it appears that Chinese security with assistance from SFPD took the flag and the torch from her and pushed her into the crowd.

Of course, I do not know what Majora Carter’s intentions were, and based on what she said just after the incident, she may have simply wanted to carry the torch while holding solidarity with Free Tibet message and the pro-Tibet protesters.

The end result of her actions (and the response) was the surfacing of a secondary message about free speech right here in the good ole USA and in this Olympic ritual itself. This message is that freedom of speech can only be accepted secondarily to the spectacle of the experience itself. The only torch run that was allowed to occur was one that was whitewashed and flawless in its own imagination.

The speech at the opening ceremony can be viewed, at least in part, on SFGate and symbolizes the level of denial that this ritual has come to. The speaker says that he sends the torch off with good wishes “as we allow it to pass through the streets of this beautiful city with harmony and unity.” If it seemed like they guy had a sense of humor, I would have thought that he was being intentionally ironic.

Instead, he simply enacts the absurd theatrics that carry denial forward along with our attachment to nostalgia.

ShareThis