Explosions. Screams. Carnage. It was a horrible sight, even through pictures and blurbs.

I’m writing, of course, about the bombings in Iraq.

You assumed I was writing about the bombings in Boston.

Every time there is an abnormal American death — that is, usually the death of a white, middle-class person, children, or anyone else who is not a threat to the system — we as a society seem to lose our collective mind over it. I am not saying that an outpour of sympathy or empathetic gestures is tantamount to “losing one’s mind.” It’s natural to have an intense emotional reaction to horrific scenes. But when the media sensationalizes it for ratings, the public eats it up out of boredom, then we all react as emotionally as a girlfriend upon hearing an incorrect answer to the “does this make me look fat?” question, there is a problem.

Unfortunately, these things happen all the time. That doesn’t justify or excuse them, per se, but it also does not make them as exceptional or rare as we’d like to believe. That we choose to include only the tragedies that harm people society deems “innocent” — that is, not gang members, the homeless, the impoverished, or, more troubling, people in other countries — is borderline psychotic. On top of that, you have the blatant double-think (Orwellian term for cognitive dissonance) required to maintain this overt bigotry while simultaneously exalting one’s self for being a righteous, altruistic humanitarian. It is precisely this type of thinking that leads to various atrocities.

I was raised Jewish. I took years of Sunday school and “learned” about the Holocaust. It was clear even then that my “teachings” were pure propaganda, meant to convince me the world hated Jews so that we would band together, marry each other, make Jewish kids, and continue the tradition and so on. (Birthright is the adult extension of this.) However, the take-home lesson for me was not anti-Semitism; it was the powerful effect of conformity, obedience, and tribal bigotry.

We ask now, horrified, “How could something like the Holocaust happen?” “Why didn’t anybody do anything?” And so on and so forth. Well, I have bad news for you guys: if we were all living in 1930’s Germany right now, most of you would be Nazis. Sorry! Didn’t mean to pop your bubble of self-righteousness. But it’s true. Germans weren’t inherently insane people. They were merely people reacting to their environment. It’s always more muddy than the historical snap shot makes it seem. Also, why would the U.S. or any other global force intervene to “help”? For one, we as a society clearly don’t truly make an effort to show sympathy toward overseas atrocities and when we do, it’s usually exploited as a pretext for some invasion the government wanted to carry out any way to increase its stranglehold on the global economy. (World War II was no exception.)

The same principle is true here. Everyone is writing condolence letters to Boston marathoners on the SAME DAY a week-long series of bombings in Iraq continued and murdered over 30 people and injured over 150. I’m not commenting on the political situation in Iraq. I know nothing about it. I also know nothing about Syria or Libya, but I do know that I saw precisely zero people send their “hearts” to the families of those victims. While we don’t know the motivations of the bombings in Boston, what we do know is that we clearly have an irrational bias toward Americans — or, more specifically, those that the media claims are innocent citizens — that clouds our perspective. If that’s true, what are the logical extensions of that bias? What other things might we not be looking at objectively? Is objectivity the goal? If not, then who are we to judge racists? What is our role in the world? What impacts do our actions have beyond what we can see directly?

These are questions I would like to see asked and discussed. It sickens me when something as horrific as mass murder occurs and is then co-opted by the (social) media for their own nefarious motives. Tragedy sells tickets. It’s sad, but true. What can WE do to change that? Can we stop looking at the horror? Maybe victims don’t WANT to be in your thoughts and prayers. Maybe they want to be left alone. Maybe losing a family member is hard enough already and they don’t need it confounded by a sudden rush to infamy?

I don’t know. I don’t have answers. Violence is fucking tragic. But I think it’s time we started looking for the more subtle forms of violence inherent in our everyday lives since we can actually control those. Maybe that will have a chaotic effect and create ripples of peace. Saying, “I don’t hurt anyone” is the most under-inspected, ludicrous statement of self-righteousness floating around today. I might not punch people in the face or blow up long distance runners, but I participate in an political-economic system that is certainly destructive, in many ways. Violence is not always as blatant as a school shooting.

I’m not original for saying this, but it is a message I think bears repeating, at least until enough beacons are lit.

Much love to all.

Broad Background

We all want to be good people. However, everyone has different definitions of what constitutes “good.” For example, I do not think going to church is good. While there are some positive aspects of church, on the whole I find it to be a delusional patchwork solution to a much deeper intrinsic human anxiety or insecurity; the positive byproducts of going to church are merely coincidental. However, many people think going to church is good. They give it more value than I do. (I don’t necessarily think going to church is “evil” either, but I’m merely pointing out an example of variance within value systems.) They have a different framework of the universe and therefore of its ensuing moral matrix. So, clearly in the context of “good,” there will always be a varying spectrum on which the totality of humanity lies. I know; this observation is nothing novel.

The question of “right vs. wrong” becomes tricky as you zoom in and out on the issue or context at hand. If we are judging ourselves, we have near total control of both our behaviors as well as our working definitions of “good,” so the equation has two erratic variables, as we can not only direct the behavior, but also “bend” our idea of what good is to fit whichever behavior is (often) simplest or most convenient. A quick example is if we are running late to meet a friend, even if we believe being late is “bad,” we can say, “Oh, well. He/she won’t mind,” or, “Well, they’ve been late before so it’s okay for me to be late too.” We make little excuses so we don’t suffer our own crippling judgment at all times. I get that. It can be a survival tactic. However, when we are our own subject of judgment, as the “act of wrongdoing” gets more intense, the more complicated the moral dilemma becomes.

On the other end of the spectrum, one that is unfortunately ubiquitous in the world of Internet and social media, is our (tyrannic) judgment of the actions of celebrities we do not know personally. Whether it’s Lindsay Lohan going to rehab, a politician’s policies, Lance Armstrong lying about doping, Sandusky fucking kids, or any of the myriad of other over-hyped story lines that dominate the (WiFi) airwaves in a systemic attempt to drown out and eliminate any semblance of independent — and therefore potentially dissident — thought left in our collective consciousness, “the public” always has something to say, some opinion to share, some judgment to make. People make these assertions proudly: “FUCK LANCE ARMSTRONG!” — “SANDUSKY CAN ROT IN HELL!” — “RICK SANTORUM IS THE DEVIL!” — And so on and so forth.

These types of criticisms serve two purposes: for one, they allow the individual to feel like he/she is participating in the “important” social discussions; in addition, they give the individual an outlet for the frustration and hostility that builds within them due to their overwhelming lack of control and influence over his/her immediate environment (work, society, etc.) as well as his/her lack of complete understanding of his/her relationship with said environment. We are all suffering from an inability to impose ourselves on our surroundings, and since we are not able to deal with those things directly — For example, if a dude is serving tables 40 hours a week, he is required to conform to such un-human standards of behavior (customer is always right, smile at all times, always be helpful and upbeat, etc.) that it causes him to not only feel like a total piece of shit, but also like he doesn’t have control over his own situation. He is at the mercy of the protocol since he relies on the money it provides. So he feigns respect for an incompetent manager or smiles at the most annoying shit-fuck of a customer in order to retain that source of income. The frustration this breeds does not simply go away when he clocks out. That must be dealt with. — we have to find outlets for that frustration. Sports is a great one as it deals almost directly with aggression. We can root for one team and hate the other and yell and scream about things that don’t affect us. It’s like recess for adults so we don’t “act out” in class (work).

There are many other of these types of unhealthy and misdirected “outlets,” but an important one is what I mentioned above: making moral proclamations and judgments on celebrities and other broad or vague entities or issues. Chucking your half-baked opinions into the ethos is emotional masturbation. And like actual masturbation, it keeps the demon at bay. For a time.

The reason people do this is that it’s incredibly low-risk. It’s really easy to yell judgments when you stand to suffer precisely zero backlash, save for a few “negative” comments on your Facebook post.

A Case Study

Recently, two writers for the Chicago Tribune, Nina Metz and Chris Borelli, came out with an article that, in essence, defended and, at times, advocated heckling in a live stand-up show. This was met with near unanimous vehement disapproval by the stand-up community. Every comedian in the country had a Facebook post or a blog entry devoted to dismantling the asinine article. I sat back and watched and I arrived at a curious conclusion. I posted on Facebook:

“I wonder if everyone would be so vocal about their opposition to the heckler article of Chris Borelli and Nina Metz booked a comedy club.”

The insinuation, if it wasn’t obvious, is that I felt that people were able to be so loudly opposed because they really had nothing to lose. These were “out-of-the-loop” writers that are not gatekeepers and are therefor in no way a threat to someone’s (budding) career. Combined with the fact that the article was so vacuous and ridiculous, they made for easy targets. So I suggested that if they booked a comedy club, or otherwise controlled access to something comedians wanted, people might think twice before they burned that bridge.

Recently, I was informed that a comedy club booker, whom I have always thought was a deceitful and atrocious human being, has been arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. He knocked his (now ex) girlfriend to the ground by throwing a box at her head, after which she spent multiple days in the hospital. Yet the “community” remains silent. Now, I understand there are some trepidations with the lack of concrete evidence, etc. (Even if this particular story is not true, this thought process is applicable to many other instances of awful behavior we either have witnessed or will witness.) However, the reticence to commit to a particular “stance” seems to be motivated mostly by weighing the opportunity costs. “Should I stand up for what I know is right or continue to get booked?” Some people even found convenient loop holes: “I’ll work the club, but I won’t like doing it.”

But, see, this is how the broader, more systemic issues arise and are propagated. It’s precisely because people close to the issue say nothing for personal (or capital) gain that the issue itself ripples outward until it has changed and become a different, more substantial problem. For example, everyone loves to rag on politicians, but we don’t know the complex inner workings of the games that they need to play in order to survive (or thrive). Maybe it’s necessary for so-and-so politician to take an anti-gay stance to appease his voter base to guarantee votes and therefore money/power, etc. How is this any different from our little situation here? We are all slaves to our own game.

What To Do?

People love to criticize broad issues like rape or domestic abuse, but what would they do if forced to actually take a stance on it while making a sacrifice? If we are faced with an issue that is local, that we can actually influence, and we stand to gain or lose something by taking a particular stance, that is the true test of our moral character. There is no permissible “cognitive dissonance” here. I don’t think one can work for a small business and simultaneously “not support” the person who runs it.

Now, of course, we can’t do background checks on every single person we work with. I understand this. I also understand that certain “horrible” behaviors are permissible. For instance, if a booker cheated on his/her significant other, I don’t know if that is a compelling enough reason to cut ties. Some people might think it is; for me it’s not. I have worked with some people that did things I didn’t agree with. Some of them I tolerated, others I did. In some cases, if I had to do it again, I would not support them. I am accountable for my past mistakes. Regardless, there is clearly a lot of personal variance within the context of our own moral thresholds.

I know myself. I know that I don’t want to be involved in anyone else’s bullshit, but it is tough to isolate my own behaviors. How are we supposed to know what our net effect is on the rest of the world when society and life is so incremental? I know certain things. I don’t want to be complicit in the wars the U.S. starts; I don’t want to be involved in the systemic propaganda that brainwashes the public; I don’t want to contribute to the status quo that distances humanity from its roots and perpetuates a psychologically problematic social norm; I don’t want to propagate corporations that mistreat workers or suppress the rights of children. I don’t want any of that. That’s not me. I just want to be me. I want to write and perform. I want to be in love. I want to have great conversations with my friends. I want to laugh. I want to cry. I want to live. I don’t want to play games. I don’t want to posture or fight. I don’t want to climb ladders. I don’t want to pretend. Is that possible? Or am I constantly going to have to give foot rubs to the devil in order to retain some semblance of success and production? Has society become so homogenous that the options are that black and white? I’d like to think not, but it feels like I’m constantly killing myself to learn the rules to a game I don’t want to play in the first place.

At the end of the day, it’s not about what anyone thinks. It’s about what I think. (Just like for you, it’s about what you think.) I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything; I am trying to make sense of this myself. I’m sure there are different ways of looking at it that I don’t see. But I want to try and be aware of the consequences of my own actions, as I think we all should. The consequences are not simply what is directly in front of us. Our actions create waves that can turn into tsunamis if enough waves are thrown in the same direction. If you sweep an issue under the rug and say, “Yeah, but I need the work.” Okay, that’s fine. That’s valid. But then can you criticize anyone else who makes the same choice in a different set of circumstances? Can we truly criticize people for “permitting” abhorrent behavior in a similar fashion? Where does it end? How, then, can we hold anyone accountable if we are willing to justify our own selfish motives at the expense of basic decency? I think we lose our credibility and therefore our right. For those reasons, it’s always difficult to figure out what’s right. We either have to man up to our own judgments or stop throwing them so freely at targets that either can’t hear us or don’t care, and accept our own human flaws in others.

I suppose, ultimately, we are all left with same questions that are, admittedly, difficult to answer honestly:

Where do we draw the line? How does that compare with where we claim to draw it? And can we live with that?

This year is coming to a close and, as feeble-minded Americans, we desire some sort of definitive structure to our experience.

LISTS!

We love lists. Rankings. Anything that grants the masses access to the same conclusions as the experts, but at a fraction of the effort and knowledge. But as the year winds down, it’s a pastime to look back and reflect on what has transpired and convert those ephemeral experiences into notches on a time-belt. Nothing does that better than the Top 10 List.

For too long, we have come to take for granted the beauty that is the Top 10 List. This is a travesty, given the time and arduous effort expended by various no-name journalists to quantify art, events, and people in a format that requires the public to do nothing but remain sedentary and most likely bitch about how their favorite whatever got snubbed. It’s freedom of the press at its most pure. So, in honor of the list-makers and the lists themselves, I give to you this year’s top ten Top 10 lists:

10. CNN.com — Top 10 Tech “Fails” of 2012

Always a stalwart of hard-hitting journalism, CNN.com hits a home run with this list. Reminding America that, amidst the rapid growth of technology, we are still human and these hilarious tech gaffs deserve a second glance. It’s fun to see the egg on the face of the faceless monster that is technological growth!

9. CELEBUZZ! — Top 10 Celebrity Newsmakers

Always an important component of distracting the public: celebrities. And what better way to keep the public in denial over their own realities than a recap of the greatest celebrity newsmakers?! From Lindsay Lohan and cocaine to Rihanna and Chris Brown’s fist, this list does the job of providing the public something to do while not attending to their deep-seeded emotional issues. Classic Celebuzz!

8. The Washington Times — Top 10 Bimbos of 2012

The yang to Celebuzz’s yin, The Washington times makes sure to cash in on only the most erroneous of the famous. This provides the readers a chance to reflect on the fact that despite the riches and ridiculous good looks possessed by these so-called “celebs,” their human mistakes can also be exploited for tabloid fodder. It’s not so great at the top! Remember that when you’re at work, trying to drown out the siren song of your soul with yet-another-podcast.

7. TIME — Top 10 Everything in 2012

Oh, TIME. How considerate of you to try and consolidate all of the events into a series of comprehensive lists. This list has it all. Want the best tweets? Got it. Worst tweets? Got that too. Anything you can imagine, TIME has you covered. While we admire the breadth of this, they lose a few points for lack of specificity. But what can you expect from a publication with a name as broad as “Time”?

6. The Wall Street Journal — YouTube’s Top Ten Viral Videos of 2012

The digital age has arrived and is here to stay. (Until it is replaced with something faster, sleeker, and more disruptive to the human emotional process.) Viral videos are spreading like, well, you get it. And the Wall Street Journal has mopped up here, giving us all another chance to remember our favorite transient celebrities. Everyone always talks about their 15 minutes of fame. Well, thanks to YouTube’s uploading limit, for most people, that number is kept under 10 minutes.

5. Collider.com — Top 10 Movie Trailers of 2012

Movie trailers. Often better than the movies themselves. Forget the actual movies, let’s just look at the trailers. They don’t require the patience or cognitive focus that a movie requires. They are flashy, involve loud sounds and lots of quick cuts, and they deserve to be honored for that. Collider nails it here.

4. SHAPE — Top 10 Workout Songs for October 2012

You’re jogging. You got the gear. You got the iPod Nano strapped to your arm. You laced your shoes. But wait! What the fuck will you listen to?! Have no fear, this list is here. When trying to forget the fact that you’re living in a society that deprives you of your natural desire for movement and exercise so you’re forced to immerse yourself in Nike gear and navigate a dog-shit laden sidewalk in order to pump serotonin into your brain, you have to have the right tunes! This list is great, but it’s really specific. If you’re jogging in May or June, you’ll need to find a different list of songs. But for October, this list will make the fact that you’re supporting child labor to negate the donuts you ate for breakfast that much more tolerable.

3. US News — Top 10 Public High Schools in 2012

Knowledge is power. The children are our future. Other vacuous sentiments. It’s no secret that high school is a formative time period for most people. But where are these kids being indoctrinated and entrenched into the status quo most EFFECTIVELY? This list has the answer.

2. Fox News Latino — Top 10 Latino Soccer Moments of 2012

I’m as shocked as you are that this list ranks so high, but soccer (football) is the world’s most popular sport. And in the Latino world, it’s religion. So a recap of the top Latino soccer (fútbol) moments is fitting. I was shocked to find out that the announcer screaming “GOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!” was not every entry in this list.

1. drewmichaelcomedy.com — Top Ten Top-10 Lists

Is there even a question? In a world littered with inanity, nothing provides the layer of sarcasm, irony, meta-criticism, and general attitude of subversiveness with the aim of exposing the absurdity of categorizing life as much as this top 10 list. Despite the vague hypocrisy inherent in using a list to criticize lists, this list “tops” them all.

Happy New Year. Go smooch some dude’s daughter.