The point of all this is: to keep a diary of what’s going on. People old enough to remember this stuff know that “blog” is just douchespeak for “web page.” But it’s hard to find a place to just have a web page any more. The WordPress people seem to make this pretty painless.
Kicking and screaming is how we come into the world, unless there’s something wrong with us. We learn to get the screaming under control, many of us. But I think the kicking shouldn’t ever stop. Kicking means we’re aware of what’s happening to us and we want to change it, through movement or running or lashing out or just to change. Kicking means alive. I’m kicking against a current right now, a slow, gray tide that wants to make me quiet. I’ve got strong legs, though.
‘Course, it’s a strong tide, too. I’ll be forty-one in a week and I’ve been unemployed for almost a year. Besides an income, my own place, and a big chunk of self-respect, I’m also out a wife of seventeen years and two incredible daughters. The plan was to have a great job and be able to see them (the kids, son, it’s the kids I’m talkin about here), maybe move nearby. Hasn’t happened. Not for want of trying. Recruiters, networking, job ads, alumni events, joining groups, forming groups, even (eeew) posting to and searching Monster and CareerBuilder…end result: the plan is still only a plan. Except now it’s a plan that recedes like a lighthouse away from shore. Got to keep kicking against that tide.
I refuse to read most of the New York Times, because it’s a catalog of stuff I can’t have. Their recent magazine issue on New York’s new gilded age looked nauseating. Their advertisers don’t have the right to tell me what I should want. Their writers and editors don’t have the privilege of holding up a mirror to show me all I don’t have. Each magazine (I do the crosswords, which are good; thanks for putting that out, guys) has that Lives piece, or whatever it’s called, in the very back. (No, NYT, you don’t get a link. Not yours.) I read this week’s because it looked like it had something to do with the Ramones.
The author is a man who’d tasted some of the punk scene and says he understands why you can’t just put on a brand new T-shirt and assume the heritage. In his piece, his ten year old son asks for a Ramones T-shirt for his birthday. Dad, being a nice little consumer, goes off to the mall and buys him one at Hot Topic. Son puts it on during the party and then rips it climbing a fence or something. Nearly in tears (“Trying Not to Cry”), the boy shows the result to daddy. The dad thinks, “Now it’s real!”–showing the author does indeed understand that clothes reflect the person who inhabits them. Aaaannnd…in the next breath, because this is America in 2007, daddy promises junior a nice new one. And goes and buys him one. Daddy keeps the ripped T for himself.
Exactly what the fuck has been learned from this?
I mean, if we start at the premise that the punk movement rejected, among many other things, the wholesale and unquestioning consumption of mass-produced goods; and if we acknowledge that buying meaning isn’t the same as learning meaning–then hasn’t daddy sold out the very things the punks stood for? Knowingly? With an indulgent smile and a ready credit card? Triumph of the will: dad < market machine. I’m glad I’m not him, and I’m glad my kids aren’t his kid. My ten year old (girl) is made of much stronger moral stuff. What a pair of pussies.* Daddy’s not kicking, and he’s teaching his kid how not to, either.
*And no, I don’t mean that as a sexist term. “Pussy” is here employed to mean whiner, baby, softie, weakling. For me, these qualities don’t have anything to do with gender.