"All You Need Is Love"

I actually read this last weekend, but I found it more intriguing than the short stories I read this past week. This is another idea from the “What Is Your Dangerous Idea” portion of The Best American Nonrequired Reading. This one is called “A Political System Based on Empathy” by Simon Baron-Cohen. The article being, well, about a government system based on empathy, suggested that if we were to convert to a less systematic government system, we would be able to resolve our conflicts more easily. I actually sort of agree with this idea. Instead of attacking your opponents with laws, ads, and debates, why not sit down and talk with them to understand their side of the playing table, and to work out some sort of agreement. This ‘sitting down with opponents to resolve conflicts’ idea reminded me of Obama saying that he would sit down and talk to terrorists to negotiate with them. This means: Obama is more empathetic!!! J. This idea (if it were to preside in our country) would potentially provide peace and love and happiness for the people, and nobody would have to worry about being attacked or killed in battle: because there would be no battle. Empathy would be the ultimate defense mechanism. I can just picture in my head the world leaders sitting on the floor in a circle sharing their feelings : “I just feel so bad that my people are dying…” Yes, I would too. But realistically, it wouldn’t work out in our country: a political system based on the understanding of other’s feelings would make a lot of conservatives angry…so unless we can find a way to make a smooth shift to a new power system based on the loving and caring of others, we’re locked in the endless attacking and fighting that are parts of our modern democracy. Somehow I don’t think this systematic-ness is what our country’s creators had in mind…“All you need is love. Da da dadada…”

I don't even know what to title this its so depressing.

The next story in The Best American Nonrequired Reading I would like to comment on is called Where I Slept, by Stephen Elliott from the Tin House magazine. Its more or less a list of places the author (the narrator in this case) slept while he was homeless at the age of 13. What I found interesting about this, is he basically portrayed this timeline of his life (from 1985-86) by telling us the different places he went while he and his father (who was abusive) were not on good terms…well, they never really resolve their conflict…Anyhow, Elliott keeps writing throughout his short piece that the piece isn’t about love or hate or compassion or the people he met, that its simply about where he slept. He says this every time he wanders off into the emotions and characters of the story, to bring the reader back to the topic. But he obviously wants us to get a glimpse into those emotions and what it was like to be out in the world alone. Otherwise he wouldn’t have written it. Right? This is what is unique about this writer. He doesn’t just say who he met, what they did, and why he left for the next place, he relates every stage of his ‘journey’ to something those stages all have in common: finding a place to sleep. I think that’s rather brilliantly creative. It also makes sense to do this because the places he went make a structure for the storyline. It puts the facts in order from where he started off, to where he ended. Along with the writing style, I found the actual story very intriguing and amazing. Yet disgusting and somewhat unbelievable. Can you imagine a boy of 13 years old, living on the streets of Chicago alone? Okay, maybe. But encountering molesters, prostitutes and German drunks? Smoking weed, drinking, and doing pills-regularly? I mean, he was in eighth grade! I know it exists and is an unpleasant problem, but I’ve never seen/read true, first hand accounts of homeless children and what they’re up against…to this extent anyway. The others I’ve read, very much unlike this one, cut out the sex, self-mutilation, and the drugs, and ended with the reuniting of the family. (YAY!…not so much) It’s not like I didn’t know about these things (I’m not that naïve), I just can’t get it through my head how young he was.


*sigh*


It’s very depressing…


I think I’ll go write a song.

What did you say?

So, I continued reading The Best American Nonrequired Reading, and came across a section called "What Is Your Dangerous Idea". It's pretty much just a compilation of random, weird ideas about our society...one of these ideas caught my eye: written by David Lykken, it's the idea of creating laws requiring parental licensure, meaning a person wouldn't be able keep a new born child unless they were employed, married, and 21 years of age. what? that's right. You can't have a child unless you meet all of these requirements, which would supposedly give the child to "have a chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Ok. I agree with the planned parenthood politics of it all, but making it a law to let the child live a happy life reminds me of the Pro-Life argument, which, of course, I'm against. Like this abortion issue, people should be able to decide when, where, how, and who to raise a family with, according to their own beliefs. As for the crime rates, that's where planned parenthood comes in. If we could simply promote the idea of having children at an appropriate time, then maybe the rate of teenage pregnancies (for example) would go down. But to oppress a country by putting restrictions on families would create even more uproar, because there are so many families that aren't considered "normal" by this guy, Lykken. It wouldn't be good. So I guess it was right to put this idea in the "dangerous" section of the book, because its completely absurd, and if it ever happens, then I’m for sure moving to Canada.

The Love Songs of Burma

This week I continued my journey into The Best American Nonrequired Reading book. I read a commentary called Rock the Junta by Scott Carrier. It’s about the only band in Burma, Iron Cross.
Apparently, it’s the only, and the most popular (no way) band in Burma, and the people are obsessed with the lead guitar player, Chit San Maung. According to Carrier, some teens and young boys walk around town with guitars to be like Maung…even if they don’t play it.
This initially caught my attention because I have a friend (*cough*Mattie*cough*) who goes to Burma a lot to help out at an orphanage. So after reading about this band, I asked her if she knew anything about it. She said she didn’t.
But the band itself kept me reading the piece. It reminded me of American metal bands from the 80s and 90s. It was just their story that clicked in my head as deja-entendu: Rebellious, chaotic, and loud. Carrier even compared them to Hendrix who shredded the “Star Spangled Banner” on guitar at the Woodstock festival in 1969. Yup. He described them as that revolutionary. The band’s timeline even reminded me of the States: the lead singer, rebellious Lay Phyu, broke off and released some solo music himself. Of course, Phyu’s album freaked the government out and he was banned from performing…. But nevertheless, to this day he remains a model rebel for the fans. Sound familiar? Sort of… So back to the Americanism of it all, I went on to read that Carrier actually went to meet the famous guitar player (Maung) to interview him and ask some questions. What he found was that it was much like American celebrities : body guard, filtering questions, and vague (if any) answers. That crushed the band’s Hendrix-like image. In reality, they’re controlled by the government and really aren’t giving much if they’re soaking all the fame up. Yea, they act all revolutionary, but they let the government pretty much re-write the lyrics into love songs….what? Where’s the revolution? Where’s the real push back against the totalitarian government? Where’s the individuality? The secrecy? Carrier’s point: The Burmese, if they want more individual rights need to step up to the plate and hit the ball. (Bush, this does not mean go invade…not us, them.) Quite frankly I agree with Carrier. They have numbers and motivation (to some extent), and I think it would be beneficial if they got some national pride and stood up for themselves. YAY! But then again, its their country. We can’t impose our ideas on them like that. They can do what they want.
Overall, this piece was thought-provoking.

Equality. Peace. Love.

This week, I continued reading The Best American Nonrequired Reading edited by Dave Eggers. The story I read is called Ghost Children by D. Winston Brown.
This is basically a story about how racism and inequality plagues America, causing acts of violence, and forming gangs. Brown says that the reason there is gang violence and revenge (mostly by young men) is because the groups of people that have been persecuted over the years revert to this method to become 'men', or to prove themselves. Since inequality has clung to the base of the US since our country started, the African-Americans and other groups have been falling father and farther behind in the economy and the social system because of America's ridiculous laws and state of mind. So what can one do to help these people get up to speed with the job market and the housing market and the economy after years and years of denying them these basic rights? Not much. It's like starving a fish then throwing it into a bowl of sharks and saying "You'll be fine…Just try to be like a shark, and you'll be ok." It doesn't work that way. You can't expect a persecuted group of people to rebound like that, especially into a world that has treated them incredibly poorly.
As you can imagine, African-American men were (and are) trying to show how intelligent and innovative they are, taking higher level occupations in government and industries, spreading their ideas for the good of the country- and several succeeded. (just look at Barack Obama. Go Obama!!) But what about the future of our country: those angst-y teenagers from New York suburb (for example)? - of all races? Are they looking to be a senator and change Washington, or are they concentrating on getting revenge on that guy that stole their iPod? Probably the second, a normal teenage instinct. The racist US, years ago (and some today), gave the white racial group and unbelievably unfair advantage in society, and to make up for all the years of restricted rights, the African-Americans need a little more help than an iPod to get equal jobs amounts, and equal posts in government. Since they may not have the resources to become a senator, these young men (of all races) strive to become men in other ways: clothes, jewelry, and violence. Racial violence. It is ever-present and quite frankly, I'm sick of it. If only I could go back in time to delete slavery and persecution of people of different nationalities from the history of mankind. Then these groups would have a fighting chance, the chance everybody deserves in today's unkind world. That's the root of the problem, and its going to be hard to fix. Yes, we've come a long way, but there's still a lot of ignorant, stupid people out there, hating because of a difference. Just a difference. That’s all its takes, and that difference isn't going to change: It's up to us to change. Equality. Peace. Love. Come on people. They’re simple concepts.