A Forum for the New World Order

If we don’t fix our fiscal disaster quickly, we’re looking at a depression. It’s not likely we will experience a Depression, thanks to our recognition of several warning signs and a shift in government. The difference between today’s collapse and the Great Depression is that the last 8 years was spent, not only creating the conditions for this economic collapse, but also in a seemingly deliberate effort to erode our international relations. While we’re working on getting our country back on track in an economic environment that will require our full attention to heal, we risk sitting-duck status in a world whose varied sentiments for America run a widely negative gamut.

If we do nothing about our economy/infrastructure whilst losing our heretofore failed attempts at international diplomacy, these two problems threaten a more dangerous sum of their parts. I hope we manage a sense of humility in the face of a global schadenfreude that could arise out of the ashes of our collapse.

We've needed a popular voice about the dead and dying in Gaza. Jon Stewart, it turns out, is it. But he was on vacation until last night. Obama followed Stewart's lead, decrying the violence in a more centrist fashion, today.

These Americans think vacation is a constant. Unfortunately, statistics alone cannot convey just how unrealistic a concept Vacation, with a capital “V”, is for the average worker: with it's boat drinks, golf games, and beach blankets.

While average people do their damnedest just to survive, and seem to be the only ones who actually WORK for a living, when they're able to, a separate class in charge of how many of us get laid off, whether we'll be tricked into loans we can't afford, and whether we'll hear about all that corruption on the evening news, goes on vacation. Nothing against vacationing: hard working people deserve a break. But the people who are left to keep this country afloat don't have that luxury. And in my opinion, our caretakers don't deserve one until measurable steps to see that the less fortunate can enjoy the same have been taken.

Monkey-see, monkey-do. We're following the leader, and so on. Our current “leader”, W, speaking of vacation, is neither. Obama, not wanting to “confuse” the world about U.S. Israel policy, has stayed out of it. Unfortunately, people have died and are dying as a consequence.

I'm just a layperson, but when Katrina hit the day before my Manhattan vacation, I could barely leave my hotel room, let alone go shop for shoes with Condi (she was in Manhattan when we were, apparently oblivious to the genocide in New Orleans).

Obama, you need to recognize the gravity of your own election. We've been telling you, overwhelmingly, to disregard the “man” currently in power. We need you and we need you now. Your vacation is over, now do your damned job.

Look at this article and realize that we can no longer rest on our elitist, academic laurels as designers. Stop belly-aching the old adage that someone is a “poser” or a threat just because they haven't had the privilege to afford, financially or socially, a design education and are self-taught. True, some of them may not have the eye for detail that takes a publication from bad to good, or from good to great; but let's not underestimate the power of an individual, coupled with the power of the internet, to learn those things, and probably exceed the work from those of us who, hogtied by what may turn out to have been a narrow design worldview, lack the fresh eyes a “novice” could possess. Let's stop “owning” the design field and start being open to a more cooperative discussion on design. We have the opportunity with these new peers to stand on the progressive side of history when our art transcends mediocrity.

I knew I'd catch your attention with that headline. And that proves the whole point of this post: we're all doing it, we're all interested in it, but our public discussions about it aren't pervasive enough to underline those facts. And when we finally DO discuss it, the language serves to suppress sex-positive attitudes, highlighting instead what our culture deems are sex offenses. When I discuss it, and I often do, some brave souls join in. Most deem me “untouchable” for it.

I hid my previous blog specifically because, although it served the, albeit vengeful, purpose of rebutting the Republican offensive against Bill Clinton by listing at length all known Republican sex offenders, it was a disservice to my cause of helping improve our dialog about sex in a positive way. I am no better than Ken Starr if I'm publicizing sex offenses as he did with Clinton (who's “offense” was arguably not).

Sex-positivity, as I've personally defined it, is really just an acknowledgement of sex's existence, it's nature, and it's positive possibilities. I recently challenged one anti-gay-marriage man by very simply positing that our legal framework today understands the age of consent to be 18. Consenting adults, therefore, should be allowed to enter into contracts of their choosing, regardless of gender or how many people want to enter said contract. Yes, I'm talking about polygamy there. Explain to me, oh nay-sayers, how this legal framework would degrade to condone bestiality or worse, as so many anti-gay people have hypothesized?

Our system functions currently, regarding as an example, child pornography laws, to charge even underage individuals when they send suggestive images of themselves from their cellphones, a practice colloquially called sexting. Such individuals, if found guilty, must register as sex offenders and therefore face public scrutiny for the rest of their lives.

We have made the decision, culturally and by way of age of consent laws, that child pornography is unacceptable. And we've sensationalized it enough that we decided sex offenders should register such that their names, addresses, and other information are public domain, presumably for everyone's protection. Unfortunately, the teenager who sends a cheeky photo of him/herself must now forever face difficulties in housing, employment, or just plain being “normal”, as a consequence of RSO disclosure laws.

We might benefit by calling everyone a victim of our sex-negative media (The old dogs have got a new trick: It's called criminalize the symptoms while we spread the disease.—Ani Difranco). We have a choice: to either slide down the slippery slope of rounding up and banishing sex offenders, or to improve our dialog about sex such that teenagers aren't convinced a sexy photo is their best shot at getting noticed.

What WILL we do with all this great stuff available for us to behold these days? I'm referring to everything: bad and good. Good for obvious reasons, Bad so we can have a hierarchical context from which to judge what's good.

There is so much art, music, information, STUFF! How will we take it all in? Can we? It seems a shame not to try, mortal as we are. But we only have so many hours in a day. Will the future accommodate more and more people making that very attempt?

I'm thinking microchip implants. I just can't fathom any other way.