How I Spent (and What I Learned on) My Summer Vacation

How I Spent (and What I Learned on) My Summer Vacation

One of the challenges of unemployment is the question of how to take a quality vacation. First, you have no money. Second, it's hard to be sure what you are taking a vacation from.

I took two "staycations" this summer. One was at Musikfest (a week-long, annual music and beer festival in Bethlehem, PA).

I had a great time and listened to a great deal of music: probably more than I had ever experienced in any other Musikfest.

But I also noticed an out-of-character behavior I had developed. Each evening, I'd carefully review the next day's acts at the various venues, plan my itinerary and then doggedly (if not always successfully) pursue it – even if I didn't particularly feel like it.

In short, for God alone knows what reason, I began turning it into a job substitute.

Apparently, five months into unemployment, I'm experiencing the need to be someplace each day.

When I begin the active part of the job search (most of my preparation is done), immediately following labor day, hopefully that will work for me.

My second "staycation" was a week-long house-and-dog sitting job at my friends' home which had, along with a number of other wonderful amenities (such as a built-in pool and jacuzzi) a flat screen TV the size of an aircraft carrier's flight deck complete with various remotes and hundreds of cable channels and stored movies.

It took two pages of technical documentation for me to use a bare minimum of its features.

We do not have cable in my house. We have a TV and DVD player. And a radio tuned to NPR. And a computer with a dial-up connection communicating using CSC (Can-String-Can) protocol.

So I brought along books and writing I wished to accomplish and personal development tapes to listen to and... plunked myself down in front of the TV and scarcely moved for the next week other than to let dogs in or out and to feed us.

I even kept it on while I slept. (I apparently have more difficulty being alone than I realized.)

So, it was a seven day total immersion experience.

Oddly enough, it was probably a wise use of my time. It confirmed a great deal of what I already believed and exposed me to some new stuff.

First, it was quite obvious that everything on TV is created to sell the viewer something. In the case of advertisements, they are attempting to sell you products and services. In the case of everything else they are attempting to sell you on continuing to watch their channel thereby driving up the value of the advertising "space" they sell.

When you think about it, whether they are selling you goods, services or entertainment, what they are actually selling you is a culture, an ethic and a lifestyle.

So, while any particular program may, ostensibly, entertain or edify or inform there really is only one genre on television and that is persuasion: to persuade us to buy the advertised goods and services and to persuade us to keep watching that channel. And to persuade us to buy the lifestyles implied by each.

Basically, it's all infomercial.

This is a learning that, hopefully, will cause me to my critically evaluate my internet consumption as I am sure the same dynamic applies as one gathers all this neat, "free" (if sometimes questionable) information available on advertiser-sponsored web pages.

This is not to say there aren't qualitative differences.

Horton Hears a Who, Adam (story of a young adult with Asperger's), Food, Inc. (criticizing America's food industry), and the astonishing, Up (what the heck is that animation? – it certainly is not a children's story) were movies that were, in my opinion, quite well done and worth the time spent.

Another new discovery was Disney Channel's cartoon series, Phineas and Ferb. That impressed me so much I ordered two DVDs. (Why is it the best freakin', highest-quality stuff on TV is geared towards children? The worst trash is reserved for the rest of us. Maybe children are more discerning.)

Following my news addiction did not lead to such fruitful finds.

I had hoped to give FOX News a chance but the very first story I heard them report on was distorted. (I had already seen the story on CNN and MSNBC about how the farms involved in the tainted eggs had a history of various violations going back to the early '90s – FOX reported the same story only mentioning the violations that occurred during the Obama administration. BUZZ! Sorry, FOX, thank you for playing. One nice thing about freedom of the press – you get to choose your poison.)

Finally being able to watch The Daily Show and The Cobert Report I decided that they, along with MSNBC and CNN, are basically variations on the same theme: entertainment cloaked as news programs. I just found The Daily Show and The Cobert Report more entertaining.

I suppose that was one of my significant learning experiences of the week. It isn't so much that CNN leans center and MSNBC leans left and FOX leans right (if I may indulge in a bit of understatement) as much as it is that all three news networks are primarily entertainment.

The folks that did the movie, Network nailed the direction "the news" was going.

There was some upside.

First, my two lingering reminders of what network news used to be like in the days of an Edward R. Murrow or a Walter Cronkite was the News Hour with Jim Lehr and the BBC World News, both presented on public broadcasting.

If I had cable, I'd watch those and probably no other news services.

And cable TV News – even on CNN and MSNBC - is good at presenting visual news: in this case, the flooding and terrible conditions in Pakistan as well as the retrospectives and progress reports on New Orleans during and after Katrina. I had been following those stories on NPR but my imagination failed to grasp the reality portrayed by the photojournalists.

But, bottom line, if one considers the "density" of the news as the amount of factual information, analysis and expert opinion over time spent viewing, reading or listening to it, I'd have to say that NPR (on the radio) and the web pages for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, PBS and the BBC take the prize (along with other big city newspapers such as The LA Times, The Times-Picayune or The St. Petersburg Times).

As far as shows such as Keith Olbermann (as well as the whole conservative menagerie and freak show on FOX which I didn't even sniff at), I consider them pretty much garbage.

So there are two important things I learned on my two summer vacations.

The first is, in a capitalist society, everything is for sale and everyone is trying to sell you something. And I'm okay with that. But we need to realize it and evaluate the various offers critically and intentionally.

The second thing is that there's a lot of value out there in our media-driven culture and society for not a whole lot of money (for example, most of the music at Musikfest and most of the information on the internet is free) but there is also a lot of crap and garbage – and some of that crap and garbage serves as an addictive narcotic that is actually quite expensive, over the long run, in time and money and moral sensitivity.

Let the buyer beware.

Changing Things

Changing Things
Bill Bekkenhuis
August 19, 2010

Introduction

There is a lot of frustration in America. Political and economic frustration. It's felt on the political left and the political right. Some of those who feel it want to see radical change. Others want to see incremental change. And we are sharply polarized regarding the desired form that change would take.

This post will attempt to deal with that frustration and a possible response to that frustration from a writer who considers himself center-left but is a registered Republican.

Recognizing the Need for Change

The entry point for myself and probably for many people in America right now is anger. Anger and alienation. Anger at the direction my country is taking and my sense of alienation from the political process that the ordinary citizens of America are supposed to own. Oddly enough, my friends on the right feel the same way though we differ, of course, in our opinions regarding the direction the country should be taking.

So, I must either put up with and learn to live with my anger and alienation, which eventually will lead me to become numb and apathetic to it, or I can do what small amount I can do to address it.

Visioning the Direction of Change

I believe it important that a program of social change have positive goals rather than simply being against things. You can't embrace a negative.

There are any number of sources both religious and secular as well as role models for my vision of the "good community." I would like to list a few. (Naturally others may have different sources. But these are mine.)

1. Albert Schweitzer's thoughts regarding Reverence for Life. (http://www.schweitzerfellowship.org/)
   
2. The United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (http://www.usconstitution.net/)
   
3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml)
   
4. The Principles and Sources of Faith of the Unitarian Universalist Association (http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml)
   

Changing Ourselves

All lasting change begins with ourselves. We need to embody the change we wish to see in society. All the great leaders of social reform – people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela – have taken this to heart.

I cannot aspire to the heights of a Gandhi, a King or a Mandela. (They often felt as if they couldn't aspire to them either.)

And there are many thousands of things that need changing in this country.

Still, I will do what I can do and pick a place and start.

I've decided to focus on two of the things that need changing in this country Other people may make different choices.

But I've decided the US Constitution is being warped almost beyond recognition by an unholy trinity of politicians, the advertiser-driven and technologically sophisticated media, and corporate interests (both profit and non-profit).

In a sense, this has always been the case and probably always will be.

But access to media has become so essential to getting elected and so expensive to obtain that we are really in danger, in my opinion, of becoming a plutocracy.

And the media itself has become so compromised by corporate interests, the need to access (and therefore not antagonize) government officials for their stories and the desire to increase their audiences (and therefore increase their advertiser revenue) by entertaining them rather than by informing them, that they're all but dominated by fluff, glitz and propaganda.

I believe the best response Americans can make to this new state of affairs is to become intelligent consumers of products and services on the one hand and from where we get our information on the other.

How much of what we "value" is truly of value? How much of what we "value" really comes down to what we are told to value by these same media outlets and corporations?

In the end, our politicians – who are supposed to be accountable to us – are, in fact, virtual prisoners of the 24 X 7 news cycle, the endless media-driven campaign, and the need to raise money.

So, my personal action plan in response begins with my own mindfulness regarding the way I expend my time and money and especially the way I gather and evaluate information.

To that end I will...

1. Keep a journal regarding how I spend my time each day,
2. Evaluate my expenses each month to see which corporate interests I am supporting,
3. Make a list of the highest quality media sources I can review in about an hour each day on average.

I will, in turn, use the information that comes from this process to become selectively alienated from destructive aspects of my culture and to withhold my economic support and media attention from those aspects.

Selectivity is, I believe, a very important decision affecting both strategy and tactics. In a military campaign, it would be the principle of the objective. Universal alienation from our culture is all but impossible to sustain and renders us politically irrelevant. It also ignores the very real benefits that culture produces. I would not trade my situation now for slavery in ancient Rome or serfdom in feudal Europe – and many a person poorer than myself would concur.

And looking at various great change agents we see their ability to focus their energies and their leadership on one issue at a time. Using just Gandhi as an example, one remembers his focus on putting an end to the identification papers the government required people of color to carry in South Africa and his march to the sea in India to challenge the British Empire's monopoly on salt. One issue at a time, one campaign at a time, Gandhi challenged colonial rule, recruited people to his cause and enlisted international support.

Becoming Part of a Change Movement
at Home and in the Neighborhood

As we determine those aspects of the culture from which we are most alienated and replace our behaviors that reward or endorse or subsidize those aspects with more positive, life-affirming, community-affirming behaviors, the next step is to enlist our family, friends, neighbors and co-workers – our circle of influence - to our cause.

That requires persuasion and persuasion requires charity and tact.

People do not respond well to being lectured or preached to. They do not respond well to being told they're unethical or evil or unpatriotic or complacent or just plain stupid.

They do respond to being asked questions about what they believe and they do respond to being listened to and replied to courteously and intelligently.

They also must be respected and valued when their commitment to reform or their ability to translate that commitment into material support for reform is less than our own. (This may spare us some of the guilt we will experience when we inevitably encounter those whose commitment and sacrifice in the cause of reform makes our own look pitiful and less than halfhearted.)

This is not to minimize the inevitability of significant conflict but to recognize that conflict is the last straw and, even then, should be conducted in a spirit of charity. Gandhi told his followers in India that when the British were inevitably forced out of India, he wanted them to leave as friends. And so they did.

People who are serious about challenging The Powers That Be probably need to have a copy of, How to Win Friends and Influence People right next to their copy of, Rules for Radicals (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/1439167346/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282223496&sr=1-1) and (http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282223542&sr=1-1.)

Becoming Part of a Change Movement in
the Community, the Nation and the World

Being involved in our own change process and continuing to reach out to our circle of influence we are now in a position to both institutionalize our efforts and to make common cause with like-minded groups in the community, the nation and the world.

In America probably the quickest entree into that level of change is through voluntary associations.

Just as we are free to speak our minds in America so, too, are we free to associate with those like-minded individuals who share our commitments. Whatever aspect of the culture that one chooses to engage, religious institutions, ethical societies, political parties, cause-oriented groups and other voluntary associations have probably gone down the same road before and have ideas as to what works and what doesn't work. They also may have connections to similar entities having a wider scope. For example, a church engaged in dealing with homelessness in the local community may very well be involved with national organizations such as Habitat for Humanity or even international organizations.

As important as it is to make ourselves the models for the change we want to see in the world and as important as it is to reach out to our circle of influence, it is also important to associate with those larger entities which, through their own resources of membership and money, have more of an ability to irritate, challenge and ultimately influence the Powers That Be.

Not only that but these voluntary associations will reinforce our own personal change efforts through challenging those things we still take for granted and supporting us in our personal change efforts.

And, if no such voluntary association exists or if one considers the existing ones to be inadequate, one always has the option of starting one's own.

Conclusion

Anger and alienation should not be feelings we treasure like precious jewels nor should they be precursors to numbing out and apathy. Least of all should they be triggers to destructive acting-out or violence.

They should be seen as incitements to reform.

They should be seen as challenging us to engage in efforts to make America, under the constitution, a place where we can achieve and enjoy the fruits of our individual accomplishments in a context which also recognizes our individual and corporate responsibilities to the good of the community.

So the first step of reform is to feel the anger, embrace the alienation... and then commit oneself to constructive action directed at their sources.

The second step of reform is to critically analyze and change, if necessary, the television, books, magazines, web sites and advertising we consume.

The third step of reform is to critically analyze and change, if necessary, the actions we take and the money we spend as each of these represents votes for the type of America we wish to see.

The fourth step of reform is to reach out to our circles of influence (whether face-to-face or virtual) and attempt to enlist them to similar commitments in ways that are persuasive, respectful and charitable.

We do this because, to paraphrase John Stuart Mill, people are most often correct in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny. Even our most intractable political adversaries' efforts are most often motivated by values we, too, would hold true. And such differences as we have with them are largely in how those values are ranked relative to other, competing values as well as in our respective programs to attain those values in the real world.

And remember, it's a political truism that today's adversary is tomorrow's ally.

The fifth and final step is to invest ourselves in humanity and in the natural environment that largely determines the quality of our lives through tangible commitments of our time, our talents and our financial resources to worthy voluntary associations of my choice.

Is something like this essay the kind of thing that could turn into a program? I don't know.

Could a program based on five principles make a significant difference? I don't know.

In my life? Certainly. Beyond that? Who knows.

But it beats living an apathetic life where I uncritically consume the mush fed to me by the media-driven culture: thinking what it wants me to think, buying what it tells me to buy, valuing what it tells me to value and doing what it wants me to do.

Until I am no different, from a moral point of view, than a dead man.