Book Review: Game of Thrones Part 1

"When you play the game of thrones, you win or die, there is no middle ground." 

(Cersei Lannister, Game Of Thrones)

How true comes the statement from a jealous and even vile Queen in an epic story by George R.R. Martin. Set in an early century world of Knights, Kingslayers, watchmen, Lords and rumors of ancient Dragons: Game Of Thrones depicts a story that can only be told through the eyes of its characters.

Eddard Stark and his wife Catelyn are caught in the middle of a battle for honor among families who are competing for the throne while their own family may be in jeopardy. After Stark, a long time friend and confidant of the King, becomes the Hand of the throne, he discovers secrets that he wish he had never known. And time is running out as rumors rise that the children of ancient dragons are planning to revolt. 

Each chapter Martin moves the story forward by focusing on the point of view through various characters. From the view of the Stark family to the dwarf brother of the Queen to the daughter of the last great Targaryen warrior to the Night's Watch, the high intensity of progression made it hard to put the book down. 

When vying for power, money and in the case of Sansa Stark: love, everyone's honor seems to fail. Even among those most respected among the Night Watch, most of the boys coming from questionable backgrounds regaining their name and reputation -- find their vows are a heavy loyalty to bear against their families, particularly for Jon Snow, the illegitimate son of Ned Stark. 

Nevertheless, as winter is coming, so is war - and the high anticipation of clashing Lords hangs in the balance through betrayal, tragedy and peculiar loyalties and unorthodox victories.

I would highly recommend this Award winning book, Game of Thrones, and I look forward to the second installment: A Clash of Kings.

Shouldn't Love Always Win? Part 2

In the last post I reviewed Rob Bell's analysis on heaven vs. hell in his book, "Love Wins," (so if haven't read it yet, get to it - here's the LINK) but one statement, one question remains unanswered, and I'll proceed here:

"Does God get what God wants? is a good question, and interesting question....But there's a better question, one we can answer, one that takes all of this speculation about the future

 --which no one has been to and then returned with hard empirical evidence and brings it back to one absolute we can depend on in the midst of all this, which turns out to be another question....

'Do we get what we want?'"  (Rob Bell, Love Wins)

Bell continues with the notion that we, as humans have a will, a choice in the matter of our life, death and ultimate destiny. Previously I noted how he discussed bringing heaven and hell to earth. Here we take a look further into what it means to do so. It's important, I think to realize there are multiple wills working in the Earth - and as such how we choose to respond to each of those - is our fate. 

There are those who would choose to torture less fortunate - and in doing so, they not only create hell for themselves, but hell for those they're afflicting. Then there are those who choose selfish means to get ahead, in business, in relationships and they too are creating Hell in their own life, consequences for poor choices and actions that do not speak life. Certainly, the experience of pain, physical or emotional or spiritual or mental can be a be great hell for which we need rescuing. 

What about natural disasters? I personally think that there is such a thing as the "will of the Earth." This in my mind is how creation functions. It is the result of Chemistry, Biology or Physics. It is the elements that make the world go-round. As such, these affect the human race also, for better or worse. And Bell recently said in an interview that when he's asked the question: how could God allow such traumas, like the one in Japan, and a host of others -happen? - He can only respond first to believing that God is a good God, that he understands pain and grief and sorrow and can meet the human being right where they are. From there, the answer is about redemption and restoration.

But back to "Love Wins," - Bell spends a great deal of time, and entire chapter concerning the matter of what God wants and what we want. He tackles a little more on the Book of Revelation and he says, "...the letter does not end with blood and violence. it ends with two chapters describing a new city, a new world that God makes, right here in the a midst of this one. It is a buoyant, hopeful vision.....this vision we're given here in the final words of the bible tells us all kinds of things about the big story, the one Jesus invites us in to...." (p.113) And in the new place - this life of Heaven, there is no room for destruction or decit. There's no place for evil to succeed. 

I imagine a person standing in this beautiful environment and their skin - their negativity, their evil and even their pain, their sorrow - peeling from their very being, their body and spirit. It is as if they are so compelled to strip from their Hell and enter the beauty of a heavenly life, an unconditional love - a extraordinary existence. Bell explains that for such beauty to exist, as God intended, He must say - no - to things that are not life-giving, and to those who continue to do them - "Not here you won't..." implying there is no room for their hellish thinking and living. But this does not negate the opportunity for restoration. And what it shows is that "love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will." (p.113) Such love compels - for one to leave the old and embrace the new. The stripping away is picture of death before life. Why would someone choose to live in Hell? Well, we all do - inadvertently- with or without thinking sometimes. But this doesn't mean the Gates of Heaven are shut. And it doesn't mean reconciliation to God is not eternally possible. 

Nevertheless, "The End" remains more mysterious than our Human mind can comprehend and I think it's fine to leave it just like that. Rob Bell may have critics, but theology is only a perspective so to harbor offense seems unnecessary. I do find his process and perspective agreeable - it's a conversation worth having. It's a conversation that's been hanging in the balance for thousands of years - and will continue. My recommendation is simple: have an open mind. 

In the meantime, I think it's accurate to say, we are all craving the beauty of something Greater than ourselves. And it's our purpose to bring Heaven to Earth - to be inspired and inspire others. The beauty of dreams and the beauty of sacrifices propel us forward into community living and an epic existence. These are a taste of Glory. Living now, today, thinking about how to spring out tomorrow and be just who we're meant to be. 

Shouldn't Love Always Win? Part 1

There is a lot of Material in the book I am about to review, and this is only a small approach to a wide topic for review. For now, I'll begin with this: 

"Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. 

We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires." 

(Rob Bell, Love Wins)

It implies that there is a mystery in the account of heaven vs. hell. Rob Bell takes the topic by storm and addresses the questions so commonly asked by people who have never believed in a God and by those who have spent their entire life being frustrated by the box so many institutions -often- place God in. So what is the truth about heaven and hell and the fate of the entire human race?  I don't think Bell presumes to know the answer, rather after reading his material, I'm convinced that he is only presenting a new way of thinking that makes God truly powerful. "God gets what God wants."

And if God made man in his own image, if the Spirit of the Creator in everything that exists in the earth because of Love alone, why would He not offer every opportunity possible for each one to choose him? Even if it meant in infinite time and space? 

What I appreciate about Bell's analysis is that he presents both and heaven and hell as reality now, in the Earth. "The age to come" does not necessarily have to be a realm that is yet to arrive. Rather by establishing the reality of heaven and hell in the present, it prepares the human being for the future of this life and yes, then ultimately a Realm that will unite itself with the Earth.

In his address of heaven: he pulls in the story of the rich man who came to Jesus to ask him, "what must I do to have eternal life?" Bell states that the rich man wasn't necessarily concerned with whether or not he would get into heaven, in fact, having done all the "right" things and living the "good" life, he assumed he would. What that young man was concerned with was a deeper sense living in the "age to come" - the future of his existence before and after death. So to this, after Jesus recites the commandments (which the man had kept),  he drives it home - with a heart-issue. "Sell all you have..." and the man walked away. "He had great wealth...." Such was his greed. The point, Bell says, Jesus is making is that heaven is ultimately "entering life." What does it mean to really live? To have peace, love, joy? What does it mean to live in the state for which we were created? Could the goodness of LIFE be heaven on Earth? I can imagine so -- if in fact a God so big could create an Earth so beautiful, with laws of Physics and Biological intricacies that function at will. And honestly, I couldn't imagine the eternity to come existing without them.

Bell taps the lack of imagination we have when it concerns heaven. Floating in robes atop gold streets, through pearly gates and big 15th century stone castles. While it might be interesting - the world has grown, progressed, and discovered so much more since the days of King Richard the Great. Would it be so impossible --for what we experience on Earth to be a taste of Heaven? Could not heaven's existence mesh with the beauty of the Earth? I think so. 

Moreover - Bell continues by discussing the very idea that God set out to save the human race and that it is not FROM God for which people need saving, it is unto God one is saved. This indicates, in my mind - what we are being saved from ultimately - is ourselves. And if it is eternal - then it seems to me, it should exist in death and in life. 

But one might ask, what about justice? -is this not the fate of Hell? I am beginning to believe that we, as humans have derived our own form of justice (and in western culture, it includes court dates and prison cells and political bias) - If God is truly to be all powerful, is it not conceivable that His version of justice is beyond our comprehension and we have no idea what justice REALLY is? The Cross was meant to be a sacrifice - not just for the human race of 1st century, but for every century past and in an "age to come." 

I'll back up a moment and address Bell's analysis on Hell. First, it's important to note that he takes a more scholarly approach to the place Christianity has deemed a place for those who do not accept confess their sins in this life...

Bell discusses an the idea-- stating that in the Old Testament of the Bible, there is very little reference to a place called Hell and that there is more commentary on death itself - both in the physical and in the spiritual renewal of God's graces. In the second half of the Bible, Bell points out that Jesus reference's to hell were of a physical garbage dump that the Israelites of his day would have been familiar with. In essence, a common noun was used as metaphor to the consequences of poor choices. 

This is interesting. Why? Well - once again Bell makes a significant point about the importance of this life and how sometimes, we do a fine job of bringing Hell to Earth through our will, which we were given by God. We're not robotic. We're human and we are allowed to make up our mind, for better or worse, how we want our life to look. So this approach to the idea, once again, creates life in the here and now - rather than some furnace --where we'll feel our skin scorching for eternity. 

But what about the passages where Jesus may not refer directly to hell but to condemnation and punishment? It's a valid question. Bell takes a look more specifically at the audience Jesus was talking to - and ironically, it was never heathens that received his words, but rather  - the religious culture that believed they were on God's good side and had their ticket into heaven.  "This is not say that hell is not a pointed, urgent warning or that it isn't intimately connected with what we actually do believe, but simply to point out that Jesus talked about hell to people who considered themselves, "in." (p.82)-- He continues on to discuss references in the Bible where such punishment is the preparation for a great Redemption. It is ultimately about a death and consequences --before a transformation. "Failure," Bell notes, "isn't final, judgement has a point and consequences are for correction." 

As for references in the book of Revelation and traditional teachings about the end times, I was interested to find out -- through research -- more than one interpretation exists on the book, i.e., there are some theologians who actually believe the book was written specifically for it's time and the events already happened. Others believe that it was a book written to address timeless truths and still others who believe it is solely the end times. Nevertheless, the book is debated -- and we may have no true understanding. Which is it? Option D: All of the Above. 

So is there a place called hell? I believe so but I also admit my understanding of it is human, and therefore minuscule compared to where it actually may be or what  will really exist there. Could it really be His people that He made in His image? Or could it be the "fallen beings" - that do not yet exist in their eternal damnation? We really don't know. But it certainly gives the mystery of love and salvation more hope - don't you think?

Ultimately: Rob Bell's words make sense to me. His reference to scripture and study of the Hebrew text often fascinates me. There will be people who disagree with him, who will disagree with me. There will be some who would say these ideas are heresy and frankly haven't cracked open the book. And there will be those who read these words, already pre-set to disbelief and will still call Bell a heretic. Others will find they just can't wrap their mind around the concepts he offers. And that's ok. There will still be others that will find his words resonate in a deeply spiritual way, so much so, they find themselves approaching God in a way they never have before. To each of you -- I'm fine with that. So if the book stimulates any conversation, I can imagine it will be that of a God who came to save the Earth --- Such attention, in any form can only be applauded, correct?

So go ahead, read it, decide what you think. But don't jump on the bandwagon of critics before you do. Have an open mind. 

Nevertheless, I conclude with this. Each generation has its heretics. Ironically, Jesus himself was considered one in his own time. Often they are the revolutionary leaders that bring people into a new life of grace and understanding of an old idea. And frankly, I'd just rather be a heretic. 

Free The Press!

"I sat there a long time, and thought about a lot of things. Foremost among them was the suspicion that my strange and ungovernable instincts might do me in before I had a chance to get rich. No matter how much I wanted all those things that I needed money to buy, there was some devilish current push me off in another direction – toward anarchy and poverty and craziness.” (H.S. Thompson)

Such is the life of a journalist. It's true!


“Curiosity killed the Cat,” is a serious understatement for someone who seeks to discover the world. Whether it be investigative questions or evaluating, intensely, acquired information: the journalist knows no rest, no fortune nor any alliance. At least, this is their intended purpose.


Several weeks ago, a man by the name of Ted Koppel wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post coming down on the likes of FOX News and MSNBC. Though not flawless, the old time journalist had valuable things to say in the face of current media standards. In short – such broadcast networks are throwing away the pursuit and delivery of fact-based-journalism. Rather: they are corporations, one to the right, one to the left – that are touting for their audience an opinion they hope will be bought – at the price of truth.


Koppel noted that 30/40 years ago, though every journalist has their own strong opinion, the networks, the newspapers stumbled over their persuasions to deliver a story that often had many sides. The audience had only one task: decide for themselves how they felt about it. And in the modern age, a vicious cycle tit for tat has taken place to feed the audience what they should think and in turn the audience demands it.


But I find that those truly passionate about story-telling, do so in a way that makes the world a fair and just place. In the US, this means that the First Amendment becomes a clear ambition – a right that is defended and defined. Oh, it's true – FOX and MSNBC, they are using their First Amendment right, but they are also calling themselves “fair” press and they are
not.


Hunter S. Thompson, while out of his mind, most of the time, is revered by journalists for a reason: he integrated himself so far into the stories he covered – that you were only left with plot and the characters. Your distaste or your pleasure came from your observances, not because you were told.


No riches or wealth ever truly came from telling other people's stories. Rather, more appropriately, it was a passionate business that kept it's constituents in the brink of drama – and gained them public respect. 


This is not to say a journalist is not worth their time or their story per word and page, but it does mean, that the average journalist doesn't enter the profession for the flare of money falling off trees, no matter how nice that would that be for all the stuff we thing we need.


And it must be noted that we are living in a generation that feels the pains of sensational media news rather than special interest stories and investigative or critical thinking and the presentation of facts.


Where it will go: only time will tell. But certainly I set out to do journalism the write way - the way that inspired our Founding Fathers to establish my right to do it - and present each story as it is - to the best of my ability, then? Let you decide. 


My instincts are wild and take me to absurd places where outrageous people have insane ideas, but certainly nothing is out reach or impossible - and because of that alone, while it might rustle a few feathers, or "do me in before I had the chance to get rich," - I go after it anyway.

pennies-a-fleeting

"i suddenly found myself alone in the street with no money. my last dollar was gone.
I walked five miles up colfax to my comfortable bed...the nights in denver are cool, and i slept like a log."

(pg45, on the road, kerouac)

there's something about it, being on the road, swirling in adventure- and not having a single penny to your name. it's the plight of the "starving artist." It's the fateful case for writers and actors and musicians- who all want to tell the world about...well, something. and on a quest for the next big thing to apply our imaginative skills toward, we run out necessary pieces of paper, the punitive nickels & dimes that make life tick. because, why not? we need a beer along the way, or a pretty hunny to share it with. but isn't that what makes it all worth it?

i love the idea of adventure. i love the moments of throwing cares out the window for a good laugh and grand piece of artwork. it's the design of my life and i can sleep soundly knowing that even when my journey isn't glamorous...it is epic. and i wouldn't trade one moment.

so what does an epic life look like? well- how about the time i didn't have a car and had to walk to campus? i met a few homeless and hippies- we ate pbj. or how about the time i left behind a small beach town for the big bad city (ok, so maybe it's not HUGE)? then of course there were the 24 hour trips to the beach to listen to a friend tell me all about her joey kramer drum stick. or there's the friend, i know, who saw killer whales in the wild and the family member who made a 20-driving trip (instead of flying) across the country, for the heck of it and then again, once upon a time- i slept on a dirt floor in a mountain village just after consuming the tastiest pork i'd ever eaten.

certainly, yes, there was the time when i ran out of cash and had wait tables at a bar or the friend who left the cool of denver because of a partner's discrepancies. and once i totaled a car and didn't have to have my spleen removed (such a strange organ). there, of course, was a moment in life when i worked full-time, went to school full-time and ate bagels and chedder for dinner.

but you know what? i still made time to climb mountain and watch a meteor shower. i still found it possible to skip along the ocean shoreline in the dark. and oh, how fascinating!  all of those days and moments, all of those people i am surrounded by, for better and worse and changing- live a life to it's fullest extent. they are artists and people with stories and unique events that make them, make me, what we are.

no: i don't think you have to go broke to live an epic life, although you may find a few dollars missing on occasion. but when they are- how will you react? will you walk up the hill and find a way to sleep soundly?

i dare you to try it. and keep moving. the "west" is waiting.

grubby thumbs & truck-drivers

it's true, it's already been a week into august and i have not had a single update here. but that doesn't mean i have not been thinking. and on this occasion, reading. 

i began reading on the road by jack kerouac. the book is something of a "beat-classic," and while i have only begun- i find myself drawn to kerouac's curious tale of his hitch-hiking destiny to the west. drawn from his story, he discusses his experiences catching rides from various truck drivers, and anyone who had the space to spare. 

"and what a driver...hardly paid any attention to me. so i could rest my tired soul, for one of the biggest troubles, hitchhiking is having talk to innumerable people, make them feel that they didn't make a mistake picking you up..." (p14)

how often do we take pleasure in letting our soul rest, breathing silence, because we are so often trying convince another of our credibility, our person-hood and our worth? or perhaps, how often are we on the other side- the person testing another? 

the journey of our lives, the road we travel is busy. like the man sticking his grubby thumb out for a ride, we are drooling for adventure. and it is good. a trip out west. but we forget along the way? a little rest is needed - a soul without obligation. to trust and to be trusted, the safety, the rest, the peace that comes is ever so necessary. 

it is something- that i do not wish to forget. soon, i will take my own trip out west. and it will be exciting and adventurous and swirl with amazing things i've never done before, and guarantee i will want to do again. but in the midst of it all- a moment to inhale the still will be more than required. it is the perspective of life and the joy of rejuvenation. 

i have known truck drivers, and even have an uncle in the profession. i can only imagine his time on the road is filled with contemplation. 

and like him, those like him, and jack kerouac- the road can be exhausting. and the fumes we live on: whether it be financially or the energy- need a moment for our minds to clear and our souls to settle. the west is still there and we will arrive, but in order for it to be so in the fullest capacity, we must find the air to breathe. 

"at least i'm living"

"i have  to have something so that when i don't have any ideas and i'm not getting anywhere, i can say to myself, "at least i'm living; at least i'm doing something; i'm making some contribution." - it's just psychological." --richard p. feynman 

or is it? in most cases, i think the answer is yes- both/and or perhaps non of the above. confused? don't be.

in the society we live in today, boredom is not acceptable. the buzz of everyday life is prevalent to one's worthiness that it's self depressing when we're not doing anything- that is to say- a little contemplation and peace of mind is down right --a crime. and it should not be. why? because it is vital and necessary. we all need to "re-charge" and burning out is never a profitable feeling.

however- letting the world pass us by when we could making an impact is just as great of a misfortune. and it can be just as much a self-loathing experience when one finds themselves bitter and grave toward the world- offering nothing- and not recognizing the power within them to give something.

"it was effortless. it was easy to play with these things. it was like uncorking a bottle: everything flowed out effortlessly. i almost tried to resist it! there was no importance to what i was doing, but ultimately there was. the diagrams and the whole business that i got the noble prize for came from that piddling around..." --richard p. feynman

my friends, i believe that when we realize just who we are- and just what our capacity truly is- nothing is impossible. what's more is that when we find something we're sincerely passionate about and when we let go of the worry of trying to please everybody, the work itself becomes effortless and we are able to accomplish great things, even if we think it's just a little "messing around." in some form it can and will contribute to the world.

between the first and last sentences of that chapter: feynman explained that he had faced a time while at cornell university where, frankly, he was burnt out. and the offers he was getting from other colleges were daunting, particularly because they were expecting something of him, he did not think, he could truly provide. nevertheless; he realized that he couldn't worry about living up to their expectations that truly, he just wanted to "play" with physics. by this: his enjoyment and passion for what he did returned.

i find his process inspiring. certainly there are times when we all feel stuck in a rut. but rather than sitting idle and frustrated, not to detract from times of needed rest, why not "piddle" around and just see what beautiful things pour out of us? it just might make a difference ...all the way around.

Layers of Intensity

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: a fascinating read, to be sure.  I read it in less than a week (which is a strong accomplishment, I think.). Larsson keeps your attention and is a hell of a writer, The fact is, I couldn't put it down and was a complete nerd for the course of about 5 days... 

To start --fairly quickly, I picked up three major layers to the story, (and a few sub layers I decided I was right about). The first, are his comments on the media and journalists themselves. He seems to find that media in general, or perhaps in his society is relatively weak and would rather contort old news, beat "a dead horse" or slander contenders than uncover serious mysteries, aka, the truth. The second layer: Corporate greed and their battle for reputation w/in a society. Finally, and the reoccurring, if not the most important theme: violence against women and sexuality. 

And it's all plotted around a murder mystery. 
First, I will discuss the latter. I have gone through numerous blogs, comments, articles, discussion boards on the nature of the author's motive behind the destructive events against main female characters in the book. 

There are some that believe Larsson is a sick sadist, trying to get twisted erotica out of his readers. Some believe that he is discussing the culture as it is: and then creates a strong heroine who knows how to get revenge. And still there are others state he's acting as an advocate, revealing the truth about violence against women in Swedish society, creating a raw picture of what actually occurs.

After reading several government, non-profit, studies and news websites -along w/ bios about the author- that discuss the statistics of rape and violence in Sweden; I am convinced that there is a mix of the latter two in Larsson's writing. 

First and foremost, he started his career as a Journalist/writer. He was known, even before that as a political voice against Nazism and extreme right-wing behaviors- to the point of death threats on his life. There are some that say his long-time girlfriend had a hand in the story itself, but that's not something we'll probably not ever find out for sure.

Nevertheless: as a journalist, myself, I read the story w/ investigative curiosity. And I think that his writing has that descriptive character.

It is believed that 6% of women in Sweden (if not more) are annually raped or experience extreme forms of violence. One article in the NY Times reported that in 1990, 14.000 rapes were reported and that shot up in 2003 to over 22,000~ and this is just what is reported! Some stats estimate that 1 in 3 women suffer rape in the country, and they are 3x as likely to experience violence than the rest of Western Europe, due to the belief that men can get away w/ it more. A Cambridge Study showed that Sweden's efforts to rehabilitate violent men did not meet it's goals roughly 7 years later (b/t 1999-2006). 

While there are few more things I could rattle off; I think you get the idea. The point is, I believe that Larsson was making a statement. And I think he's doing what journalists should do: tell the gory truth for better or worse. 

YES, there are a couple of scenes that absolutely made me uncomfortable reading, but I am of the belief that the media is weak and that exposing the truth, while it may be ugly, is important. I can't tell you how many pictures every day we sift through at work b/c the rules are ultimately "don't offend anybody." The fact remains, journalists aren't at all what they used to be...but nor is public reception. 

Needless to say: I speculate that Larsson's intention was to expose the fate of so many women in his own country, and while the book is still on it's way up in reviews (though it was published in 2005) and now that the film reached theaters in the last month- what attention the public, the UN and other organizations will divert to the problems in Sweden? Moreover, in the US: in our Judeo-Christian society: will more aid trips be taken to reach such women? Honestly, I can say that I don't know. 

But those women need someone to tell their story, and I'm glad that Larsson did so. I've seen several articles and "about author" pieces that note the book was originally to be called "Men Who Hate Women." Obviously not as catchy, but defines many of attitudes among characters in the book. It leaves the others complicated and searching.

"He Chuckled Slyly, As if He had Outwitted His Enemies"

"For one reason, mainly, chiefly and eternally, no matter how much your Party promises to accomplish, no matter what paradise it plans to bring mankind. Whatever your other claims may be, there's one you can't avoid, one that will turn your paradise into the most unspeakable hell: your claim that man must live for the state." (We The Living, Rand, p.74)

"Listen, do you know how many millions of eyes are watching us across the lands and oceans? They're not very close and they can't see very well. They see a big shadow rising. They think it's a huge beast. They're too far to see that it's soft and brownish and fuzzy. You know, fuzzy, a glistening sort of fuzz. They don't know that it's made of cockroaches. Little glossy, brown cockroaches, packed tight, one on the other into a huge wall. Little cockroaches that keep silent and wiggle their whiskers. But the world is too far to see the whiskers. That's what's wrong withe the world, Comrade...they see a black cloud and they hear thunder" (We The Living, Rand, p.354)

As to the latter of the two quotes: it's one of the most interesting descriptions of Communism I have ever read. Though quoted by a fictional, disillusioned, character, there is something to be said for it. Communism is an old ideal that made its way into Russia at the turn of the 20th Century. And it is an ideal that still stands in China, North Korea, Cuba and others at the turn of the 21st. It is an ideal that, flatly, does not work.

Karl Marx may have had unique intentions- creating a utopian society in which every man gives and takes and is equalized within the community. But the step he missed was the part that when you give a man or a group power to control for the sake on one nationalistic state, even temporarily: you actually create a disgruntled-poor and starving society, that ultimately lives in fear and fear alone. And thus after just over half-a-century, the USSR finally saw its end.

What's more, as to the former statement, should a man only have the state to count on and the state does not meet their needs, what's next? By only relying on the state, with no other source, the state has all power to give and withhold, and with pride and greed existent in the heart of man, no one has the ability to question corruption. The fact remains that the freedom of will is then disposed- dreams are truly diminished and god must become something that of a manipulative state- a survival of the fittest, so to speak, and a game that goes beyond boundaries.

By trying to eliminate a 2-or-3 class system, you only create a stronger 2-class system. And this presents a list of problems for which those in Government or for the State Controlled system become the higher, sophisticated "class," and those who are not go w/ out.

Ayn Rand, who was born in Russia in 1905, at the explosion of wars and conflicts that created the Communist State- was an anti-Communist. She, and her family, experienced the rule of the "Red" state and rejected its ideologies. Her first book, published in the United States, 11 years after she left the country- We The Living- addresses the matters of USSR. And Rand became almost known as an advocate, through her work, for individualist rights and a capitalistic society. She believed in an extremely limited Government.

She had the right idea and went on to become a play write in Hollywood and continued author. Her "philosophy," if you will was called "Objectiveism" which she described as a concept who's "essence is "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

How dignifying is it to know that one has the true ability to further than what is possible- in practical and personal ways. And in a government system, where one has a choice, where a man can start a dream w/o being dictated by the state is cause worth fighting for.

Ironically, We The Living, was rejected for three years by New York Publishers who said she did not have a true grasp on Communism. 

Peace, Love...Tunes

Woodstock: the (in)famous concert that is believed to have defined a culture or rather, a subculture. Three days of peace, love & music...that was their anthem, their slogan and one of the largest mass gatherings in history.

I recently finished the 4-hour long documentary film as well as finished reading The Road to Woodstock by Michael Lang (the brain behind the banner).

I was immediately drawn into the film by the intimate overview of the scene. Throughout the movie- the music kept coming with the opening act from Richie Havens, to songs from The Who, Janis Joplin, Canned Heat, Santana and Jimi Hendrix. In between each two-song set, the film cut to the "happenings." Everyone was covered from the kids who attended the festival to the towns-people scrambling to make food for as many as they could to the port-a-potty plummer (no joke). What caught my attention was how many of the officers and towns-people complimented kids attending, noting that they were pleasant and mannerly. At one point, two men were caught on tape arguing- one said, in a very bitter tone, "they're all happy and on pot!" while the other contorted "well if it makes 'em happy, then why not let 'em have it? we got to feed them, what else are gonna do?!"

The film often went to a split screen of multiple "events" taking place, for example- a reporter interviewing on person in one window, and naked people taking a bath in another. It was an amusing site.

But, I would have to say that the part that stuck out to me the most is Santana's set. He was a new artist at the time and according to Lang's book, one of the latter artists to be signed. His set was one of the longer ones in the film and apparently was the first band to really get people on their feet dancing. At one point, Santana's drummer slipped into an incredible solo. The documentary did a fantastic job showcasing the drum talent with an overlapping-triple split screen: I felt like I could have been part.

Ironically though, Woodstock was not with out backyard drama among the organizers, the town and the musician's managers. Hendrix's managers insisted more money than what Lang & his team were offering anyone and had to settle for splitting him into two acts (an acoustic set at the beginning and the last performer) and therefore two payments to justify a $30,000 compromise. The Who caused problems from the moment they arrived and included rude occurrences at the local hotel accommodations. For some artists, half of their agreed payment was due upon arrival to the Woodstock site, and of course, by that time, the organizing team didn't have a dime and and John Roberts pulled out family funds to make up for the loss. And estimated 500,000 people went to the event, after losing track ticket sales and collectors, fencing problems, it became a free....and the masses swarmed- and stayed through rain and mudslides.

Despite the financial disaster; Lang said that it he felt the weekend had been a success, both interviewed in the film and written in his book 40 years later. Even Max Yugsar, who owned the land, thanked the crowd for being able to show the world that they could gather so many- peacefully and respectfully -against the critics.

Lang's book definitely provided an in depth view of the chaos behind the scenes, while the film itself- grazed the surface of bohemian expression and incredible music.

I'd have to say my only eye-brow raising moment was Michael Lang's comparing the weekend to the 2008 Inauguration. The political accomplishment for Barack Obama- while seemingly symbolic for it's moment could not truly be characterized what would come for better and worse. Not only so, but Woodstock-- the people, the weekend, the music, the equality and even the substance abuse-- will long live judged for that weekend alone. The Inauguration, in my opinion, will fall by the waist side and the political figure will be judged by his Presidential run. Nevertheless, I will agree that today's generation shows some reflection of a previous one.

The Boy, The Tiger- The Man

Recently, I received the entire collection of Calvin & Hobbes as a gift. The other day, I read through the first 10 or so pages, in which Bill Watterson, the author, dictates his journey to the two witty characters of his infamous comic strip.

What struck me the most was his passion to be a comic strip writer in the first place. And he tried everything. He admits that he was never the greatest cartoonist or artist for that matter, but he figured that was much simpler than, say, any formidable drawing. He wrote comics for school papers and tried a few political cartoons, but they were never that successful and they weren't really what he was after.

The fact is that Watterson's Calvin & Hobbes started as secondary characters in a comic he was submitting to various agencies and papers. Finally one syndicate that picked him up mentioned that perhaps he should expound on those two secondary characters as they seemed to have the most depth. Watterson agreed, and what he really saw in Calvin & Hobbes was himself.

He was finally drawing and forming characters that developed as he did and with college background in political science (which by the way, he had no real interest or knowledge of until college), he was able to communicate his thoughts, questions, and ideas to the world. What's even more intriguing was the fact that he had no desire to ever be in the lime light. He frequently backed away from interviews and the most well known picture of Watterson is a picture taken in 1985 is his office. He also defended his artistry and other than the books themselves, never officially authorized any other type of merchandise, such as plush toys or animated films.

Watterson as a man, we saw through the eyes of a little boy and his stuffed tiger. He was doubtful that his characters would succeed, esp. b/c Peanuts had already taken children to a whole new maturity level. Nevertheless, he found an audience, he made his wife laugh and he was good at it...

To me? Watterson was about quiet passion and hard work and that is really amazing.

Crank

"crank is more than a drug.
it's a way of life. you can turn
your back. but you can
never really walk away."

"the monster will forever speak
to me"

I recently picked up the book, Crank by Ellen Hopkins. My kid-sister had read it and for a person who doesn't read much, her telling me she polished it off in less than a day...well it meant I had to see what all the rage was about.

Ironically, it's a tragic story about a girl named Kristina Wagner, who after a summer visit to her father's quickly dives down the addiction hole and despairingly tries to maintain an image with her family.

On her summer trip, Kristina falls in love w/ the neighbor boy under an alter ego and finds out that he often gets high on methamphetamine drugs with her estranged father. Her first love leads her down a dirty trail in under two weeks- and her first taste of what she calls "the monster" leaves her isolated, gang raped and craving for more.

After going back to her mother, stepfather and sister, Kristina struggles to keep up the relationship and perspective she left with. She has become a meth addict (aka, Crank), she lives in an altered state of mind just to be brave enough to take the drug and live on the wild side. She abandons friends, finds new ones, that aren't so pleasant, is raped a second time and gets pregnant as a result.

Hopkins writes as the character Kristina (or Bree, her alter ego)-her journal and poetic muse are simple, easy to read, and quickly draw you into her mental state of being. The short poems on each page serve a purpose to the story and each word is artistically designed to read as more than one poem. Frankly, I find the writing, itself fascinating.

What's more- is that the dark words that describe an insecure girl's life are something of an autobiographical tale for the author. Hopkins wrote the story as way to reach out to her own drug addicted daughter. The heartbreak described, I felt. And I was deeply saddened, that for this meth addict, there was no real resolve. Even after becoming pregnant and deciding to keep the child, Kristina admits to snorting crank on more than one occasion.

Over the years, I've taken interest in psychology, the function of the brain, and recently, how addiction plays with that. Meth is one of the most addictive drugs out there. With heightened sense of being, self confidence, sexual arousal and restlessness- it has the ability to create severe hypertension and heart problems. It can also cause aggression and causes an obsessive behavior, one that includes the constant need for the drug itself.

The story was heart-wrenching and the effects, the facts about the drug are more scary than comforting. Some countries have prescription allowances for meth, but unfortunately, due to the social high that it's known for: it is networked underground and is destroying people's lives. What I do find most positive about Hopkins story is that, while it may be sad, she shows that the resolve for being an addict is not an easy one and should never be done alone. An addict is always an addict and it is possible to get sober- but one must be willing seek help, therapy and support. It's the only way out. For those who are prone to drug use of any kind, you're not alone and drugs aren't the answer. So don't be afraid to face your fears and overcome your addiction. Don't let it follow the rest of your life....that life could be short.

It's More Than Black & White

One of most prominent issues in America is race. It pops up in elections, economics and is the most intense social issue that exists. Stereotypes of White and Black are flagged and candid conversations rarely, if ever really occur. When I grew up, I was not taught that someone of another color was different than me. Difference in equality is not something I understood and I was surrounded by Black, White, and even Asian friends, family and people I respected. The fact was, it wasn't an issue at all and recognizing someone with darker or lighter skin was just a fact, not a put down. As I've grown and become more educated: I still find it baffling that people on either side of the White/Black community would put the other down for color. It's true that slavery in the United States was a shameful practice and was color based. But I also find that slavery has existed for thousands of years and very often is a wretched practice among so many peoples across Africa, Asia, South America, the Middle East and Europe. The United States faced a Civil War where race was only one issue (among other economic conflicts) and a century later, a Civil Rights Movement that changed the face of the country. The 1960s carried leaders that moved equality further, as it should have been carried out post Emancipation Proclamation.

As I am wrapping up Boom by Tom Brokaw, he touches on the Civil Rights Movement and its leaders. He took time to recognize what they accomplished during the most explosive decade of the 20th Century, and discussed many of their personal lessons over the years. One particular gentleman that caught my attention was a man by the name of Dr. Shelby Steele. Steele has over the years become known as a "Black Critic." Steele is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and began as the president of the local SNCC chapter at Coe College in Iowa during the late 60s. His low-income family was active in Civil Rights events in Chicago that followed the hopefuls of Dr. King. Later, Steele admits he became "something of a black nationalist, and the politics of race had changed into a this anti-white militancy." He stated that the peaceful movement became one that lead blacks to fight openly for equality and to express anger and hostility because of what blacks had suffered. It became a power struggle and not a peace march.

Steele notes that at the time, he tried to have a conversation with his father about "blackness" and his father was blown away by the idea. The idea of black power and black pride-- they were not concepts that were identified or embraced by the pre-WWII generation. Steele followed this movement for a time, but now admits that it has only damaged the work that Dr. King did.

"We were suddenly in a situation where the government was giving us a lot of money for being black...We took it as our due...in the name of race and militancy, we taught black separatism."

(Steele, Boom, Brokaw)

Dr. Shelby Steele stated that once freedom was gained, the black community didn't know what to do with it. And rather than pursuing economic development, education and jobs, they lived off "blackness," and demanded retributions from society. In the late 60s, "black power" went beyond demanding equality, and "treated our race the same way the Ku Klux Klan treated whiteness," making color the end all solution. Steele noted that blacks were not following the example of their great speaker- and seemingly the I Have a Dream speech dissolved in meaning and significance. Today, Steele thinks that Whites are different- they've swung so far to the other side of the pendulam, that are more afraid of being labeled racist than anything else. And it's evident any time a white individual makes a racial slur, by accident or not, the white community will punish their own so harshly, that person's career is over.

Steele believes that racism is actually beneficial to the black man, b/c he can then use it to his advantage- become the victim and making the white man afraid of not treating him fairly. Steele has praised Bill Cosby for challenging the black community to further themselves as individuals- and rejecting the stereotype- rejecting the notion to fall under the victim label. He doesn't have patience for what he believes are white enablers either.

He commends someone like Michelle Obama who has stated questions of "what is black and who is black enough" trouble her. She was quoted as saying, "I did exactly what leaders in my community told me to do. They said do your best in school, work hard, study and get into the best schools....and when you do that, bring that education back and work in your community," which she has done. In other words, it wasn't about white or black, it was about being American and individual in the community.

I doesn't bother Steele that he doesn't having many followers in the community. Rather he's proud of where his life has lead him and he wants to continue learning and participating.

Certainly, for me this is a profound discussion and is what equality is all about. As an American, I'm for everyone having equal rights. What bothers me is when particular social demographics demand special treatment in the NAME of equal rights. And really what is happening is their pursuit is only creating fear and handouts: two things that don't honor the human race at all.

The Sixties, Drugs, Music: Achievement

I'm winding through Tom Brokaw's, Boom, determined to finish it over the next week or so. It's been on of the most interesting books I've read. As such I've just finished reading the section where he targets a discussion on the roll of Hippies, Drugs and even Music. What caught my attention most recently was the discussion surrounding Dr. David Smith and Berry Gordy.

"I had a drinking problem in 1966- and I took LSD. I was studying psycho pharmacological effects of drugs on the mind and I must say, taking LSD was an incredibly positive experience....to be truthful, I wouldn't have opened the free clinic if I hadn't been taking LSD."

(Smith, Boom!, Brokaw)

Whether or not Smith was truly taking the drug as an experiment or not is a bit irrelevant at this point, but the fact that he moved on to open the first free clinic to help youth, poor and addicts is an important contribution. He noted that in the 60s, at the San Francisco General Hospital, the Hippies were often treated "like garbage," and turned away, brushed up to be druggies and their problems were not important as they may have been "self-imposed." Smith's clinic became more than just a treatment center, they quickly became a center for helping people obtain better health knowledge and even a recovery center. The need for his clinic(s) became greater as many veterans were returning and the VA could not support the number of people that needed recovery and assistance. And the money? It came from bands and artists who realized their fans needed the clinic, from the VA who was sending vets to the clinic and a number of other resources.

Today- Smith's non-profit organization, Free Clinic Cooperative helps support free clinics across the country. The National Association of Free Clinics, alone, total to about 1200. There are far more however, that are provided by branches of hospitals, both religious and non-religious.

How unique- that even in the midst of the "Hippie Movement," great things came. Health care is an important part of longevity and with so many Americans struggling without insurance, there are still resources for them to receive medical care. In other words, it is Americans taking care of their own, good people who believe in taking responsibility for their community. Something to think about.

"...1968 and the loss of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy, Gordy says, it was the year 'when the bad guys were cutting off our dreams.' He says, 'I think we lost our innocence,' at that time. But, he insists, although the world was going sour, the fundamental Motown message through its songs and artists remained essentially the same..."

(Berry Gordy, Boom!, Brokaw)

Gordy was one of the most prominent music producers in the 60s & 70s. And three years following the explosive events of 1968, Marvin Gaye came to Gordy with "What's Going On?" The producer admitted that he did not want to put the song out there. He told Gaye that Motown was supposed to be songs of love, heartbreak and hope, not war on the streets of America. But Marvin Gaye, Motown's number one artist at the time, threatened to quit and was just as adamant about recording the song. So they did. And today, it's one of his greatest classics. The music was real and reflected what Gaye felt about life & society, it communicated something that Motown hadn't before.

Certainly, Motown, in all its glory has motivated and inspired many artists. While Gordy's reputation has often been the center of controversy, he took a risk in mounting black artists and made the successful - pushing forward and rejecting a status quo. He was even quick to say that he wasn't trying to produce "black music," but rather music that happened to be sung by black artists. It was an opportunity in which he took to live out equality, in a peaceful way.

Nation

I have been reading yet another book by Terry Pratchett, and this time a book he wrote geared for young adults.

The book tackles and exciting tale of a young tribal boy, anticipating his manhood, and a lost young woman from developing world, both landing on the same island. Each is a mystery to the other, each speaks in a different language. And the two, together, must find away to build a society from a destroyed nation.

But there is one aspect that has caught my attention and here, I will elaborate:

"Where is your chief?"
"I'm here," said Mau firmly.
The young man started at Mau. "You are the Chief? But you're just a boy!"
"Not just. Not even. Not only. Who knows?" said Mau, "The wave came. These are new days.Who knows what we are? We survived, that's all." He paused and thought: and became what we have to be.

The most exciting parts of this grand story is that the young Mau went off to seek his manhood, and in coming upon his own island after a storm, he proved that he could become that, not by accomplishing the assigned tasks of elders or filling the expectations of his people~ but by taking upon himself the responsibility of building from nothing, and without the "right-know how" from his people. Mau had to discover, on his own- how to properly bury the dead, find food, water or milk, and had to face his fears...of the spirits he thought were tormenting him. He had to learn how to treat a strange girl and welcome her and work with her to build a new nation.

We are more resilient than we give ourselves credit for. When we feel the weakest, it often means we are at our strongest to survive, to pull forward, and to build again. Nothing is truly impossible, even when building a Nation.

The Turtle Moves & Meets You Where You Are

"Belief...belief shifts. People start out believing in the God and end up believing in the structure." (Pratchett)

"It's a matter of what's real. There are lots of ways the church can celebrate its life together. At the moment, you only seem to grasp one of them. Seeing the church as a reality instead of an activity will allow you to celebrate the church however she expresses herself around you." (Jacobson/Coleman)

Two different books, belief systems, writing styles and two vastly different stories, but somehow; they seem to intertwine many of the same messages. In Terry Pratchett's fantasy (Small Gods) Disc World, the Great God, Om, now a small turtle, has found only but one true believer among the Omnian church. In Wayne Jacobson's Californian city of Kingston (So You Don't Want To Go To Church Anymore?), the mysterious John has landed upon a pastor who is frustrated and disillusioned by the very church he helped create. The same conclusion has been drawn, the structure, the system- by hands of mankind has become a valley of unsatisfying hope- a full life feeling unattainable.

My friends: I am here to say this~ the Church does not have the answers. What's more: Christians do not have the answers.

The sing-song club of "knowing something you don't know" is a farse and there is life available to all outside what the Christian crowd calls "right." The structure built by man has often trapped God in box. The fact is, there is no box, there is no limit to the Super-power "out there." Questions and concerns, by the way, are allowed.

No, this is not to say that people who involve themselves in the structure are bad or wrong. But it IS to say, that it is not what provides full satisfaction. It only takes 2 or 3, it only takes people doing life together- and if that takes place outside a routine setting, then that is and will be-- most beautiful of all.

It's true that what I have been told all my life I should or should not be doing, I am not, and what I've been defined by (or told that I ought to be identified with)- from those in an American church and out is not how I define myself. But nor is it the way He defines me. I am going beyond telling you the, "I'm fine" answer. I am beyond acknowledging any guilt for missing a Sunday or a Wednesday. I am free to live life- as I have been designed to live. I am completely drawn and compelled, by choice, to seek out why the Creator of the Universe chooses me. I am free to befriend all or any who cross my path and I hold no stones.

I do not find what I believe to be attached to politics. I do not find it necessary to exalt "being religious," for I am not flawless. If the truth be told: I am a totally unhinged human being, abandoned to a life of great passion and above all love.

And so, only this, for now, is true: that which is real- wants you so that you may know you're not alone. Your suffering will birth beauty. Your joy will be like an infectious disease. The structure is not a true representation of what is.

The answer is "out there."

Sontag Book Review Part 2: Changing Views

"...the seemingly insatiable appetite for photography in the 1970s expresses more than the pleasure of discovering and exploring a relatively neglected art form; it derives much of its fervor from the desire to reaffirm the dismissal of abstract art which was one of the messages of the pop taste of the 1960s"(Susan Sontag, 1977)

I've finished reading Susan Sontag's book, On Photography. The book itself is more a philosophy on the art than an observation of it. Sontag was an activist in the 60s & 70s. And I have to say that her take on taking pictures can be very dark. Nevertheless, through the reading, she discusses why people take pictures in the first place, whether it be amateur photos for a family vacation to the depths of a professional photographer's mind.

As stated above the 60s ushered in photography in the way of displaying culture, "pop" culture and entertainment in way that had never before been seen. Sontag discusses earlier in the read that for decades photography had been more simply for "state record," in essence without raw emotion or pretentiousness...it had been a way of classifying and not considered art- few dared to call it that. But with every other "revolutionary" theme of 1960s; photography followed suit. This is not to say that pictures were unartistic, but they were not reveled in-prior to the time.

Andy Warhol made a masterful entrance into the pop culture world with his iconic images. Contemporary artist Billy Apple was also known for his conceptual artistic talents. Sontag mentions another intriguing photographer and artist that began ahead of her time- Diane Arbus. She had a taste for the "freaks" of society, she craved the strange artistic forms that such people offered.

But Sontag saw a swift attitude change in the 1970s. It seemed that everyone wanted a share in the artistic demand...and people began to explore the idea of capturing a once in a life-time a moment they might never get back.

Today, everyone has an opportunity to be a photographer, though not everyone may not have the ability. Classrooms teach it at colleges, digital makes pictures more accessible and photo-shop gives "artistic" a new catch. The cravings of the artist and the common man seem to merge at times, and at others, their eyes are drastically different in purpose or intent.

But no matter the time or reason, people are desperate to have a record, proof of their life, something to show more than what they think they seem- and pictures show just that. And still there are those behind the button of the camera that are searching for something, a diamond in the rough so to speak- something that will give what they're about to record meaning and a voice- a face- a name.

Sontag Book Review: A Violent Eye

"...there is something predatory in the act of taking a picture. To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them, they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as the camera is a sublimination of the gun, to photograph someone is a subliminated murder." (Susan Sontag, 1977)

Sontag was known as a literary theorist, a writer and activist who visited Hanoi during the Viet Nam war. Some years later, she wrote on her philosophy of photography and I can imagine her time in Hanoi was of influence on her ideas. I've spent the last few weeks diving into her book, On Photography. To the say the least, her outlook on the mind of a photographer or perhaps humanity in general seems rather dark.

To further discuss the quote above, Sontag was one who introduced this concept of violent picture taking. But interestingly enough I would have to agree to the extent the photographing a human being is to see something, artistically, that they may not see. Each photographer has an eye for something different...and their view on the world is typically from the outside-in. By snapping a picture it's as if they are seeking a way in, searching for a perspective in the shot that no one else may have, and certainly not their subject. It is perhaps their way of searching for an understanding of the world around them.

From reading the same passage, a blogger and Afghanistan aid worker, Harry Rud, once wrote- "To get someone in range and shoot them could be said of using a gun or a camera. There is a violence about taking a photo."

Murder, shooting a gun destroys the person's life. On the other hand, shooting a camera, leaves them to live. Yet, does it not, capture their life, even just for a moment? When I take the picture, am I not, as I explained above, looking to see something they cannot, and will essentially catch them off gaurd only to be seen in the photo? It is a battle of wondering how intrusive the act of photographing really becomes. Even for those subjects who pose, are they not hoping that they will be seen better than how they see themselves? Is it not a hope that the photographer will take from them the very thing they desire, a side of life, in themeselves they do not see but hope for? Perhaps the photographer can take it and make it so.

There is a second idea that may follow Sontag's thoughts. Being a photo-journalist or something of the sort- requires a mind-set of strict observation. In a dangerous situation, in one of distress, the photographer must choose between capturing the hanus action or helping the victim of it. In most cases, in almost all, the photographer will choose to take the picture and the victim is left helpless. To show the world the reality of what is...means, at times, that one must forget for just a moment...justice. Or so it seems.

Can the two go together? Sontag doesn't seem to think so. Bringing awareness is simply that. On one hand, justice is telling the story through the pictures, on the other, it is an observation and the photographer must be outside of it, not feel the emotions as deeply so that they can capture the distress & leave others to fill that void...to aid.

While it is a rather confusing catch-22, I believe, simply put, I don't think it's black and white, somehow, there must be room for both. I believe that the photographer can be the aid worker. It is my personal goal to give others voice, a face, that they may not have otherwise. But it is also my goal to feed their need, to push them forward to a better life. How to do so will depend on the circumstance, nevertheless, I don't know that it has to be a choice b/t one or the other.

War of the Masses

"It is important to emphasize the guerrilla warfare is a war of the masses, a war of the people...why does the guerrilla fighter fight? we must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people...he fights in order to change the social system." -Che

For each community and in each generation, certainly there are social changes that must take place for the improvement of the people. I am almost certain- despite the controversy that surrounded Che- that he had a belief in his people, and in those who shared frustrated sentiments against tyrannical rule, or at least, what he and bandits considered so. It makes me wonder; in today's generation- what is it that we hope to change? And will we take the steps to revolt against the expectation to change it? Lofty ideals? Perhaps, but I wonder if the generation of the 1960s wasn't onto something when they made this man an icon (or at the very least his ideas).

I have been reading Guerrilla Warfare by Ernesto "Che" Guevara at a steady pace and I'm intrigued. Granted, this particular work focuses on the tactics of warfare and how a "band" must prepare and conduct themselves in order to win their war. BUT- he seems to tackle the smallest details, even down to how much weight each man should carry, what guns are good or bad, and even discusses that each community must decide what is the age minimum or maximum- as if he cares rather than a generic mandate. His writing is simplistic- and it definitely interests me to look into his other works in the future.

However, in getting back to the initial idea of revolution itself- social change, and warfare: is it really the war of the masses- or in representation of the masses- and what is consider "mass?" There are countries and people groups now that often rally behind protests and posters to shout their demands at their government. Certainly many of those, such as human rights or economic mishaps are worth the protest. But are they worth a fight- with weapons and force? If so- who would do it- you?

Nevertheless, negotiation seems to be on the mind of the U.S. President Obama, but I often wonder if it takes more than a few "proposed" resolutions or amendments to make the necessary changes- political, social, etc. Today's generation wants something more. But the cost, too, is something of consideration. No no, I don't mean we should all run off and join the military to find something worth fighting for or pick up pitchforks and storm the castle or even just sit by or contend with posters and messages. But then again- all these things are worth doing, investigating and change will come when we take action toward it.

The book is an interesting study and certainly has my mind on the revolutionary generation of today....thoughts?