Timeshares to avoid

My friend Stan Goff (who also has this) loves to use this acronym: OODA. If it looks unfamiliar, I had to look it up again, and I was actually taught this stuff at one point.

OODA is an acronym and a mnemonic in the field of manuever warfare. Of course, since we worship conquest above all else in this culture, it has spilled over into a business model, sports, and politics. It's really just a way of conceptualizing what us humans do when we face an adversary. Let's break it down:

• Observe - what is the situation? what is your opponent doing?
• Orient - where are you coming from (physically, culturally, etc)? where do you want to be?
• Decide - what are the available plans and which will you choose?
• Act - put your decision into action and then repeat

Notice the "repeat" part? This is the feedback mechanism and why this is called the OODA Loop - as in: it is ongoing. And maybe that's ok if you like sitting in the same OODA loop doing the same things (relatively) against the same foes, always ending up in relatively the same spot. Work all year to build up to the same protest and then. . . well, start working on next year.

I'm seeing this now, ironically, in the Peace Movement. The war-makers, -lovers, and -profiteers are out beating the drums and the peace activists respond as does the other side, as does the other side, etc. The Peace Movement is playing war games. Is it any wonder this isn't going anywhere? How long have people opposed war? How much closer are we to ending it by fighting it in their terms? I'd say killing each other is the area in which humans have shown some of the most profound ingenuity and "advancements" in our entire history.

And lest anyone feel I'm singling out the Peace Movement, what about the folks who consider themselves part of the Vanguard of the Red Left spending their days building labor unions so they can fight for contracts, fight for grievances, and fight each other, even? How long have we heard that Labor Unions would one day lead to Communism? In my home state of Florida, Unions are barely even legal. Is this progress?

In an earlier post this week, a comment touched on where some of this thinking can lead - where the "revolutionary" just becomes a usurper to the status quo. Many people quote Machievelli, but do not understand the context in which he wrote.

I think ultimately, it may be the means which justify the ends.

Traveling with Children

One of the best scenes in Vacation is when Chevy Chase's character, Clark Griswold, admonishes the family, "we're all gonna have so much fuckin' fun we'll need plastic surgery to remove our goddamn smiles!" A version of this scene plays out in my hometown of Orlando countless times a day. The two o'clock character parade has just wrapped, mom starts to wrangle the kids as dad checks the map to see whether Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Carribean is closer from their current position just as cries of, "I'm tired of walking" "why do we have to wait in line?" and of course "carry me!" start to rise up. At some point, dad loses it and turning to the family with fires of rage burning in his eyes he declares, "we travelled all the way from Ohio because you wouldn't stop pestering us about how you wanted to see Mickey Mouse! Well now we're here and we spent over a thousand dollars on these Park Hopper passes so we are going to stay here until we get our money's worth! We came here to have fun, so start having fun!!!"


Some of us grew up in Orlando (for better and for worse, believe me) and so our parents would drop us off at Disney, and with season passes in hand, we'd meander around for a few hours, maybe drop some jawbreakers off the Skyway, and wish we lived closer to the beach. Anyway. . .

And so it is with revolution. When we speak of revolution - the real revolution - of course we mean one of the people. Not those other people, of course. We mean people like us. And who knows better what the people really want but us? And I don't even mean the plural "us" so much as the singular "us" - IOW, "me." I mean the me who is reading this right now as well as the me who wrote this earlier. Everyone should have a say, sure, but in the end everyone needs to agree on what is best. Luckily for them, we already know and it is just a matter of showing them how wrong they are.

Can everyone see where this leads yet?

"This revolution was a people's revolution, so you people better start getting with the program!!!"

We all have our ideas about which elements must be included at a minimum to make a revolution the "Real Revolution (TM)". My minimum requirement for a revolution to be real is that it be a revolution where I require myself to work harder to convince myself of others' truths than to convince others of how much righter I am than they are. Not just hearing, not just listening, but making others feel heard is a part of the Real Revolution.

Point of departure: Capitalism

Last weekend we engaged in a rarity by actually venturing to a movie theatre (and of the mall variety, no less). The reason was Michael Moore's latest offering.

Mr. Moore has a knack for blending art film, quasi-documentary, and advertising in a way which makes for enjoyable propaganda. Most people either love or despise him, which I suppose is a testament to the power of his craftsmanship.

I found this film in particular to be well made. He tackles an issue which is both heated and complex. The result is entertaining and approachable. He makes his point on a level which is more often pre-verbal and so rather than feel knocked out, one is left with the impression they have been awoken from slumber.

Having said this, I have to say that I was disappointed with the film's conclusion. The conclusion in the cinematic sense was too abrupt and left this critic desiring more. If this was the first in a series of "buddy/cop" films, maybe I'd understand. In this instance, it comes off as though the filmmaker is heavy on the piss and light on the vinegar. Is he really angered by what Capitalism is doing to his fellow humans? And if so, where is his plan?

The other conclusion with which I was disappointed was what I felt was a passive nod to what might be called Democratic Socialism. IOW, we can keep on with the majoritarian "democracy" and the free(ish) market, we just need to make sure folks get the bare essentials.

In October of 2009, I'm sure that is "radically liberal" by many accounts. I believe this version of "Socialism" will actually be the view of the pragmatic conservative in the coming years. As technology and outsourcing displaces more and more people from being able to work in this country, the pragmatic oligarch will attempt to quell talk of rebellion by placating the masses with (minimalist) social "uplift" programs. Don't believe the hype then or now. These are only going to stave off the inevitable.

True "radicalism" must deal with the "radica" or "root" of the issue. In this sense, radicalism is not as divorced from fundamentalism as the centrist powers that be would have us think. The elites of the Democratic and Republican parties flow back and forth as master chess players may play black one game and white the next. It's just a game, after all, and one in which the deck is stacked most against the players whose strategy is riding on whether they cheer for the reds or the blues.

So while most critics of Mr. Moore's (Socialist) conclusion will come from his political right, I am coming from his left. Socialism (in the ways in which "US Americans" think of it) is too conservative. It is working in the margin and a guarantee that we will just have to fight this battle again almost as soon as we've "won" it. What we need is a wholesale rejection of artificially-imposed rank, class, and other labelling on people; an end to the State (as we know it) and other systems of control which create artificial imbalances in human relations; and an end to the delusions which maintain these institutions in opposition to natural human tendency toward cooperation and positive social interaction such as the "value" of money and the idea of a benevolent and protective "Great White Father."