Trucker hats now available

TRUCKER HATS NOW AVAILABLE

New Age Spiritualism at the Unemployment Office

I have this friend who's been laid off recently. Let's call her Sue. Anyway, in order for Sue to receive her unemployment checks, she needs to go the unemployment office every now and then, bring her résumé, talk with a career counselor about potential jobs, and show that she's looking for work. Basically she needs to prove that she's ready and eager to stop sucking at the government's teet.

So anyway, Sue is down at the unemployment office, résumé in hand. The ladies are reading over her info and they say, "Wow, you really need to talk to ________. You two have sooo much in common." Turns out Sue and ________ do have some things in common. They both lived in the Southwest and spent time in doing community service in West Africa. But more important was a perceived commonality based on a misreading of one item on Sue's résumé: a degree in "Testimony"(aka Oral History). Sue, they assumed but did not confirm, must be of the religious persuasion. And so Sue gets routed, unbeknownst to her, to the faith-based wing of New York's unemployment office.

Sue first notices something is up when _________ asks if Sue has taken the Course in Miracles. Sue, of course, doesn't know what this is. Shocked at Sue's ignorance, but also pleased to be the one rectifying it, ___________ offers her full endorsement of the program, telling Sue how it will change her life, and that she feels like it's all a part of some greater plan that Sue ended up meeting her today, that she's sure this will be a major turning point in Sue's life. Besides proselytizing for this so-called Course in Miracles (which seems from its website to be some kind of vaguely Christian cult), ___________ also gives Sue copies of two writings by Reverend Melony "Rainbow" McGrant, with the word God carefully replaced by Spirit & Divine Consciousness. The writings tell Sue that she needs to merge with the Divine Consciousness; that this is the reason Sue is here on Mother Earth(the other preferred euphemism). Assimilation into one great spirit is essential but Sue is also supposed to maintain her identity by honoring her individual "birth culture" and her ancestors, to admire "ALL soul vibrations". Sue is also told that bad things like tornadoes and hurricanes "announce Mother Earth's hurt and anger at our disregard for our Oneness."

___________ also gives Sue a handout with a piece by Oprah on What I Know for Sure. These are some of the things that Oprah knows for sure: "Failure is a signpost to turn you in another direction" (i.e. if at first you don't succeed, give up and go do yoga in India or go work on an organic farm or something, but for God's sake, don't keep trying) "Trust your instincts. Intuition doesn't lie." "When you don't know what to do, get still, an answer will come" (i.e. God will tell you what to do), and so on...

This is all pretty harmless.

But aside from the fact that _______________ isn't helping Sue find a job by giving her handouts about assimilating with the great spirit and getting more attuned to her intuition, it should also be noted that ____________'s own job is to work for a government which is constitutionally forbidden from advocating religion. Taking the word Jesus or the word God out of a text shouldn't make it allowable if it wouldn't have been allowable before the deletion. For example, if a pamphlet issued by the U.S. government said, "Jesus causes hurricanes because he is unhappy when you don't accept the Holy Spirit into your heart," it's safe to say that Constitutional Lawyers would have a field day with it. But you write the same thing and use the words Divine Consciousness and Mother Earth, and it's suddenly ok?

how not to approach a recording session

4/25/09, 3pm, upstairs at a Baptist Church in the Bronx

I feel bad. Bad because what just happened was not a surprise to me and I went through with it anyway. Bad because the man who is sitting directly across from me just handed over $1000 and had remarkably little to show for it. He had just finished pleading with us to help him. He had worked long and hard, he said, to save up the money for today's session. He didn't know that there would be problems with the microphones, or that it would take an hour before the recording engineer would be ready to record, or that we wouldn't be able to finish 14 tunes in a four hour session (in fact we only finished 5), or that when you hire musicians for 4 hours they expect to leave after those 4 hours or be paid more money. And so, please, he asked, would we come back and do another session for half the pay. I feel bad. But of course I say no, and I say no in a much less sympathetic tone than my feelings reflect. I tell him that he should have planned the session differently, alloted more time (at least one entire day) and more money (at least double the pay), sent the music and mp3s weeks in advance instead of the night before, and made sure that the studio he was using had functional equipment and a competent engineer. I tell him that he has no right to expect us to work for half pay because of his mistakes, and that he isn't unique in having to deal with the inherent pitfalls of recording. But he doesn't get it. He doesn't understand why, if we can play a concert in 2 hours, we can't record a CD in 4. He looks like he's going to cry. And it's completely his own fault. But I still feel bad.

atheism quiz

1. Which of the following best describes what you believe God is?

a) God is a being or a consciousness that created the universe and humanity; all powerful, all-knowing, and supremely good.

b) God is (A) + he/she/it has the power to answer prayers, and/or reincarnate people based on karma, and/or punish people who don't follow him/her/it or behave in the way he/she/it wants them to.

c) God is (A) + (B) + God is specific to one "correct" religion and all other religions are at least somewhat flawed.

d) God is omnipresent, existing within everything but not in certain things more than others. God is energy and matter and space and time, definitely not some kind of personal entity. God doesn't answer prayers or favor people who hold certain beliefs or behave in a certain way.

e) God is a fictional character.

2. Which of the following does God care about?

a) whom you sleep with
b) what you eat
c) which books you read
d) whether you use his name in vain
e) none of the above

3. Can a person know what God thinks or wants?

a) yes
b) no

4. Can a book tell you what God thinks or wants?

a) yes
b) no

5. If I do something nice to someone and then something good happens to me, which of the following is the best explanation?

a) God noticed, and is rewarding me.
b) I created good karmic spiritual energy and then it came back to me.
c) Doing something good made me happy, and then when other people saw that I was happy, they wanted to something nice for me.
d) neither A) nor B)... possibly C), but it also could've just been a coincidence.


RESULTS

1. d or e
2. e
3. b
4. b
5. d

If those were your answers, then congratulations, you are an atheist.

Here's my point: If you answered d) rather than e) to question 1, you might think you believe in God, but the truth is that you don't, at least you don't believe in God any more than an atheist does. If God is everywhere, then he's also by definition nowhere. If you think the universe is amazing and want to call that amazing quality "God" that's fine, but unless you believe that this "God" does something, makes the universe behave in a way that it wouldn't behave on its own, then you believe the same thing an atheist does. Einstein was an atheist, but he used the word God to refer to the idea that the same laws govern the entire universe. He definitely didn't believe that there were any magical/spiritual powers behind them, but now, simply because he used the word "God" some people claim he was a person of faith. It's not worth confusing the issue by verbally equating the general awe and wonder you have about the universe with supernatural forces that read your thoughts and can punish you eternally. Get over it and just call yourself an atheist!

To a Mother Concerned About File-Sharing

A woman named Valerie sent the following letter to musicianwages.com in the hopes of soliciting the perspectives of musicians. My response is part of a group blogging event. As of 4/16/09, you can find the responses of other musicians HERE.

I have a teenage son who tells me his pirating music is no big deal. Since he is a musician himself, I point out to him that someday that’s going to be his money people are stealing. But he remains unphased.

He tells me the record sales make money for the record label, not the artist. He says that the artists make all their money from touring and live concerts. He thinks the pirated music promotes the concerts and therefore helps the artist make more money. I still don’t allow pirating in my house.

But tell me what you think - as artists out there having your work “shared,” are you just glad to have it being enjoyed, or does it bother you? Admittedly, he is stealing music that is recorded by major record labels, so maybe its different than the independent musician working for his living. But I’d still like to hear what you think.

Thanks,
Valerie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Valerie,

The truth is that both you and your son are right.

You are absolutely right that pirating music is theft. People work hard and invest money in order to produce recorded music and its monetary worth is evident in the very interest your son has in acquiring it. If recorded music wasn't (for all intents and purposes) a free commodity, he would pay for it, and that money would go to the people who invested the time, cash, and creativity into the project, and this includes the musicians, the recording engineers, the label, the promoters, the stores that sell the CD, the graphic artists who make the cover, etc. If it weren't music but another sort of product (say, blue jeans or ice cream) that was being as ubiquitously stolen and illegally redistributed, this theft would not be tolerated by our government or widely accepted by the general public.

But your son is right that pirated music can also help bands. Before file sharing, if you'd asked an aspiring band whether they'd give away a million copies of their album to fans that wanted to hear it if there were no shipping and printing costs involved, my guess is that they would've jumped at the chance. There is a huge advantage to transmitting music this way. It's quick and easy and inexpensive and whether your fans are rich or poor they get to hear your music and enjoy it.

There's also the pesky little problem that when musicians condemn downloading and call for action by the government, they are effectively calling for the prosecution of their biggest fans. It's both counterproductive and impractical to take this route. Everyone I know steals music, musicians included, and I think it's now clear that prosecuting only the worst offenders doesn't really scare the rest of us away from doing it.

So I agree with your son that file sharing is an incredible means for distributing music and that people should be able to utilize this means without fear of prosecution and I agree with you that the profits generated by recorded music need to go to their rightful owners if the music industry is going to survive and flourish.

One thing that you may not have considered is that widespread music theft as it stands now is already extremely profitable for certain companies. The feature of being able to illegally download music is effectively included in your internet service, and it's a pretty valuable feature. I believe that companies like Verizon and Time Warner sell more monthly internet subscriptions because of the fact that the service they provide allows you to easily steal music. But it's not just the internet companies. When you buy a computer, you are also buying a ready-made music-stealing machine, and a music-stealing computer is a more desirable product than a non-music-stealing computer. You see where I'm going with this. Would Apple sell as many iPods or iPhones of most of us didn't have a massive library of pirated mp3's? Probably not.

The theft of music increases the sales of all products and services which either allow the theft or are enhanced by it. Instead of prosecuting the theft, we just need to account for the profits that result from it and redirect them to their rightful owners.

And so I think the fairest solution would be to add music surcharges to the price tag of every month's internet bill, every cell phone bill, every iPod, iTouch, laptop, desktop, and any cell phone that also plays mp3s.

In the United States, if they enacted a $2/month music surcharge on all cell phone and internet service, it would create $10 billion in yearly revenue (figuring 200 million monthly subscriber to each). If they tacked a $2 charge onto every mp3 player and cell phone and $20 bucks onto every computer sold in a year, it would amount to another $2 billion. These are massive numbers when you consider that only 360 million CD's were sold in 2008 (a 20% drop from the previous year).

Even better, most consumers wouldn't notice the change. If your internet bill was $52/month instead of $50/month, you wouldn't notice. If you paid $2520 for your computer instead of $2500, you wouldn't exactly be outraged.

But I think it's only fair that in exchange for these rather paltry fees, consumers would have the right to share, download, re-use and remix all they wanted without fear of prosecution. Music would flow freely, and in essence everyone with access to the internet could have any song they wanted without paying for it directly.

Of course, there would be the question of how to distribute earnings under the new model, but I feel like it's a minor problem compared to the inequity of our current system. Ideally, a country-wide digital tracking system would be set up, and payment systems would work as it does with publishing.

This might be only a pipe dream, especially considering how many rich and powerful groups would oppose it. But if enough musicians were to get on board, you never know.

I hope this is helpful and I hope that both you and your son can continue to reconsider your positions and discuss this further.
-Alex

Funk to the Chief

Click HERE to get funky.

Elizabeth Gilbert's Perverted View of Genius

As organized religion continues to fade and as the amorphous group labeled by Barack Obama as "non-believers" continues to grow, many such people seem to be turning to alternative avenues of spirituality. The people I see most often who fit this description are members of the ever-growing yoga-vegetarian-astrology contingent, often recognizable beyond their ubiquitous yoga mats by their loose fitting, vaguely Asian-inspired attire and frequent man-ponytails. They tend to be preoccupied with words like "energy" and "quantum" and by a process of ever-tightening dietary restrictions which ends up dwarfing older concepts like kosher: no pesticides or chemicals, no meat or dairy, no fats, no sugars, no caffeine, no nightshades (peppers, tomatoes, potatoes), no wheat, and, the latest trend, no gluten. Whether or not the members of this culture adhere to all of these practices (after all, not everyone can pull off a man-ponytail), they do all tend towards the fallacy of the noble savage: the idea that modernity has corrupted a purer form of humanity and misplaced or destroyed ancient wisdom; war, disease, and corruption are not human nature but simply byproducts of man's indulgence, his obsession with technology, and his disregard of the natural harmony of nature. Like their Christian conservative counterparts, the non-religious spiritualists tend to be wary of science, preferring "natural" cures and completely bogus remedies like homeopathy; they like leaving things unexplained and imagining that mystical forces (like karma or the gravitational pull of Mercury) govern what happens in the world and what happens to them personally.

The growth of non-religious spiritualism is reflected in the success of authors like Elizabeth Gilbert. Her recent bestseller Eat, Pray, Love is, in fact, a memoir of her own non-religious spiritual quest: a year-long, all expenses paid trip to Italy, India, and Indonesia on which she attempted to better understand pleasure (eating Italian food), God (meditating in India), and eventually come to a balance (another favored term of the neo-spiritualist) and find love. The book, which like Obama owes a lot of its success to Oprah, not only appeals to non-religious spiritualists, but encourages them by perpetuating the fetishism of Eastern thought and suggesting that superficial exposures like hers can answer life's most difficult existential questions.

So odd, I thought, that a group like TED would ask Elizabeth Gilbert to discuss artistic creativity, its pitfalls and how to overcome them. Gilbert began the talk by explaining that having just written a mega-best-seller, she finds herself in the position of possibly having her best work behind her while most of her career is still ahead of her, a great pressure. She postulates that it is precisely this type of pressure mixed with the difficulties inherent in the creative process that lead to the syndrome of the self-destructive artist that we all know so well. So the question she asks is whether there is a way around this problem, a way to stop killing off all our artists and, of course, for an answer she looks to the ancients. In her research for the talk she found that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that creativity was not an act of the brain, but of external spirits which acted upon you. The Romans actually called this spirit a genius, a word that didn't take its current meaning until after the Renaissance and its focus on human potential. Gilbert asserts that the belief in creative spirits must have been helpful since it neither allowed the artist to take all the credit for his success, nor all the blame for his failure, and suggests that it would be useful for the artists of today to separate themselves from their works in a similar way. She even goes so far as to suggest creating a dialog with the creative spirits (literally talking to them) so as not to be consumed by them.

Upon hearing such a proposal I can't help but think of that reoccurring, nauseating post-game interview with the sports star who attributes his game winning score to his personal "Lord and Savior" before giving the requisite unsolicited Disney Land endorsement; how modest of him to say that it wasn't he who won the game but the creator of the universe acting through him. And I wonder whether the losing players feel comforted by the fact that they didn't lose because the other team simply had better abilities, but because God wanted them to lose. With this in mind, I wonder if it would be particularly helpful for artists, who are already often genetically inclined towards psychiatric problems, to imagine that their work isn't entirely their own but also the work of God or, as Gilbert puts it, "fairies."

Gilbert acknowledges that there is a scientific problem with believing that fairies make you create art but asserts that the fairy explanation, ridiculous as it seems, explains as well as anything else, the "maddening capriciousness of the creative process" and that she, herself, has had instances of being unable to identify the source of her inspiration. She also seems to believe that the the psychological advantage of this mild self-deception outweighs the fact that the belief itself is false. I think the flaw in Gilbert's "solution" lies in the rather teen-girlish way that she views the problem: "Allowing somebody... to believe that he or she is like the vessel... of all divine, creative, unknowable, eternal mystery is just like a smidge too much responsibility to put on one fragile human psyche." Well, yes. If you believe that you are channeling the divine, that is unhealthy. So why doesn't the artist just forget all that and consider the fact that he is an animal, a primate, subject to the forces of nature and DNA, and that what he and everyone else is doing here is not in the least bit significant in the grand scheme? Why doesn't the artist consider that the way art effects people has to do with our particular physical and emotional senses, evolved over millions of years to allow our genes to replicate themselves? Who cares if you, as an artist don't understand how it works? That doesn't make it spiritual or magical or holy. And doesn't it actually add pressure to think of it that way?

The self-destructive artist isn't a result of pressure to succeed. Most artists couldn't give a rat's ass about success or deadlines anyway. The self-destructive artist happens because genius(and I mean this in the post-Enlightenment way) is only a hair's width from insanity. In fact, scientists now believe that the same genes which cause people to be brilliant also cause people to be crazy, which explains both the overall increases in mental illness and the even higher rates of mental illness in families of brilliant musicians, artists, scientists, and doctors. I don't think it's helpful to foster delusions, whether it be in the minds of the neo-spiritualist book buying public, or in minds of aspiring creative people who watched the same TED talk I did. So shame on you, Elizabeth Gilbert and shame on you to those who buy her books.