Several blogs have reported on plans by the Westboro Baptist Church(famous for GodHatesFags.com[1]) to picket the memorial service for Heath Ledger. They even produced a flier. I’m not sure whether the picket did go ahead, but the point is that they are protesting him for being a ‘fag enabler’ for his role in Brokeback Mountain.
For those who do not know the Westbo Baps, they are a bunch of lunatics from Topeka, Kansas. In the words of Wikipedia, they condemn lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBT), Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as populations it believes are supporting the forementioned groups, including Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, and Americans.. It is their belief that all disasters/tragedies/problems in the world can be attributed to society’s condolence of homosexuality in that these are all results of God’s punishment for tolerating homosexuals. Their MO is to protest by means of picketing with slogans that are meant to shock and offend.

Hate

The family that hates together stays together

Hating for God out in the cold

Hating for God out in the rain

And so the Heath Ledger tie-in is obvious. He enabled fags(probably was one himself) and this here funeral sho’ will generate a mighty amount of media.
This is also not the first time that the Westbo’s have taken their unique form of Christianity to funerals. In 2006 they picketed the funeral of Matthew Snyder. The Snyder family sued for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants were eventually found guilty on the latter two charges and damages totalling some $10million awarded to the family. All ends well then, the balance of the universe restored and fag haters hated upon by the just and decent court, right? Well, not so fast there dude.

In his instructions to the jury U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett stated that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements, and that the jury must decide “whether the defendant’s actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection”. [...] also [in another case - Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - ] certain personal slurs and obscene utterances by an individual were found unworthy of First Amendment protection, due to the potential for violence resulting from their utterance.

Unworthy of First Amendment protection. The US generally holds the First Amendment to be the best thing since wooden false teeth and the crowning glory of their democracy. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you have to say, you’ll always have the First Amendment[2]. But lo! you don’t. If your statements are extreme and outrageous they might be deemed so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection. An obvious problem, then – what qualifies as extreme and outrageous? Well, it seems that a jury of your peers will decide. And their concept of extreme might include anything from statements of very strong blasphemy to aggressive racial hatred. And what qualifies as statements that have a potential for violence resulting from their utterance? But what is pertinent here is that this concept of extreme includes, in the case of the Snyder family, verbal attacks on people in a state of severe emotional distress.

This is an problem for anarchism – not that it cares about the US constitution or how it is interpreted by the US judiciary. Emma Goldman wrote Free speech, means either the unlimited right of expression, or nothing at all. The moment any man or set of men can limit speech, it is no longer free. It follows that she would have supported the Westboro crew’s right to spit their hate at the Snyder family and that if the cops were to attempt to prevent the Westboro picket she would be right there with the haters shouting down the cops. But is that fair and equal treatment for the family of the deceased? In my opinion there is an aspect to coercion here as well. The foundation of anarchism is the rejection of all authority and all coercion (whether physical, psychological or emotional). Is the Westboro picket coercive? Well, it’s not coercive in the sense that it does not try to force(coerce) the targets of the picket to do anything against their will[3]. But I do think that it is coercive in that it unduly crushes the spirit of another person, coerces them into despair.

So what would be the anarchist thing to do? Here’s my opinion (which I feel clunky about giving since I am only an observer in this situation and not committed to any action on it). Firstly, obviously, the Westboro Baptist church should have the right to picket and say whatever they want, no matter how hateful or personally and viciously hurtful it is. No-one has the right to prevent them from doing that[4]. Secondly, if the authorities were to try to shut down the picket I would have to side with the Westbo’s in keeping the picket going. But, most importantly, my sensibility would have to – must – picket in opposition to the Westbo’s and in compassion with the family. This is the key, my understanding of anarchism is that the Westboro church should be allowed to picket and shout whatever obscenities and accusations they want, but not without opposition. And that opposition should not be in the form of louder or more aggressive shouting back at the Westboro assholes but in the form of quiet and genuine support and respect for the Ledger family’s grief and their right to a dignified memorial and funeral.

[1] I was wondering whether I should link out to them – not that my one little inbound link would boost their google rank, but still. Yes, they are morons, but it would be unfair to not link to them when I always do link to the idiots in my other posts.
[2] And the second, the right to bear arms. There is no other commandment greater than these.
[3] other than to repent their perceived sins
[4] anything less and I wouldn’t be able to claim the right to busk outside my local church on a Sunday morning with an acoustic guitar singing Crass’s Asylum.

Man! This is great! With thanks to The Barefoot Bum I have come across the Net Authority Offenders Database – a hilarious steaming pile of shit.

In short it is the site of a bunch of people who have taken it upon themselves to define a set of rules for what is not acceptable content for the internet. Here they are:

Since this policy applies to the entire Internet, we felt that it should be spelled out as simply and as universally understandable as possible.
As a result of this, we decided that the best way to write this document would be to model it after something that everyone knows and follows (or at least should!) in their daily lives already. We chose God’s own law—The Ten Commandments. To help keep things simple though, we have narrowed it down to five simple rules.

They then produce these five wonderful rules for the entire internet

1. Thou shalt not post pornographic material.
2. Thou shalt not post hateful material.
3. Thou shalt not post blasphemous material.
4. Thou shalt not post materials of an offensive political nature.
5. Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships.

That’s it then, five simple rules. But what about Thou shalt not post material that places thou in judgment of thy neighbours? As I recall Jesus indicated that no commandment is more important than the first two[1] and while they may argue that they are not in judgment of me, only of my postings I could still feel judged – not loved – by them. But let me make this plain, I don’t feel judged by them. At best they provide some comedy relief and an opportunity to highlight the absurd levels to which people can take a fundamentalist world view. What I should say here is that I have no problem with their world view being Christian; it would be the same if it were Muslim or Buddhist or Scientologist. The absurd bit is that they (a) reckon that they can provide a glorious umbrella of good vibes for the internet and (b) that rational people would give a shit about what they list in their database. If they had called themselves the Christian Net Authority I would have gladly accepted and supported their right to evaluate and classify my content. But the Net Authority? Fuck you.

And so, in the hopes of being included in their database and therefore being allowed to display the coveted Net Authority Violator badge I have submitted this site to them for evaluation claiming the offenses of Blasphemy and Offensive political material. Unfortunately I cannot offer anything in the way of Pornographic material, Bestiality or Hateful material (as far as I know).
I’ve also decided to provide a list of a few of my existing posts that would hopefully qualify as blasphemic or politically offensive, so if you’re here from Net Authority to check me out don’t forget to click on the links below.

Violate!

But before I get to the list I’d like to mention one more item on the Net Authority list of no-no’s which doesn’t seem to be explicitly covered by the five rules (perhaps a sixth is in order?) being:

You might think that a site that contains stories about dinosaurs for children would be innocent—but let’s stop and think about that for a moment. If you read the bible (you should, it’s great!) you know that dinosaurs never actually existed, and that God put those fossils and bones there to test our faith in Him. While the stories themselves may not contain any offensive material, the simple fact that they are about dinosaurs may cause a child to question his faith in the one true God.

I’ve written before about the Creation Museum, a popular Christian museum in the US that promotes a creation story in which dinosaurs were actually carried on board the Ark with Noah, and that people and dinosaurs co-existed to the extent that humans actually rode dinosaurs with saddles. Given the above statement from Net Authority I have also submitted the Creation Museum’s site to them for evaluation. I hope that they get canned too. Wouldn’t it be interesting if this site were to be included but the Creation Museum’s not? However, given many Christian groups’ propensity for arguments and judgment of one another, I doubt it. But, I would bet money that while I intend proudly displaying my violators badge the Creation Museum wouldn’t do the same. I await the outcome with glee.

God’s dinosaurs!

OK, on with the list.

Blasphemy

• Psychedelic Christian Worship in which I belittle Christian religious experiences as being no different to those produced by illegal psychedelic drugs.
• Buraq – Mohammed’s Wild Ride which derides the literal interpretation of the Islamic story of Mohammed’s ascent to heaven. I know that this post is about a heathen god who does not exist, but I hope that the Net Authority would consider blasphemy against gods of other religions to also count.
• Blasphemy pt1 – enough said. I still have to write part 2 in which I will publish some of my own blasphemic poetry.

Offensive political material

• Ron Paul is an Asshole – Strip Mall Advocacy is about Ron Paul (that blasphemous libertarian candidate) but it does have the word asshole in the title – ’nuff said.
• Blackwater – Guns for Hire – T-shirts for Sale is about the commercialisation of mercenaries. It criticises the very people who keep the soldiers in Iraq safe from those horrible terrorists.
• Bok van Blerk and the kids next door isn’t directly about politics, but it does suggest that minority groups who identify with past (often racially segregated) glory often become totally irrelevant to modern society. Hopefully that will be enough to count as a violation.

I haven’t searched through the blog’s archives, but I’m sure there’s more good stuff there too.

OK, enough with the satire. So what if a group of people want to make rules that, for them, define acceptable content on the internet. I’m really sincere when I say that I believe that to be a good thing. All groups, whether they are liberal or conservative or even anarchist, develop concepts of what the group finds acceptable or not. But to expect that I should feel obligated to abide by them just because you claim that they are for the entire internet is ridiculous. Net Authority; consider yourself ridiculed. Now give me my badge!

[1] Love my dad and love one another

I love Americans! They’re so warm and cuddly.

Apart from the long slow public death of Britney Spears there’s no bigger story in the states at the moment than the presidential election primaries and particularly the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination.

Obama in the Sun (Time for a Change)

Before Iowa the common understanding both in the commercial media and on the internet was that Hillary Clinton would win the nomination because she is the preferred candidate with the Democratic Party establishment(the old boys). But then Obama blew Hillary away in Iowa, mostly because he was able to radically mobilize independent voters(who typically don’t vote in large numbers) behind his slogan of Change! – whoopdedoo.

The Hillary Show (More Change?)

All of a sudden Hillary was dead meat. The internet was abuzz with Obama-praise with some writers comparing him to JFK and even Martin Luther King Jr[1]. Within days the common understanding switched to one in which Obama would continue to produce record turnouts of independents who would board his all-singing-all-dancing change-train. Obama arrived in New Hampshire ready to drink champagne from Hillary’s cold skull. But then Hillary cried on TV, or at least almost cried. And before you could say Oprah a furious debate started up in the media over whether the tears were real or faked and whether voters would see it as a turn-on or proof that women aren’t strong enough to be president[2]. As it turns out On Monday Hillary Clinton teared up in despair. On Tuesday she had reason to cry with euphoria. The televised secretion may have changed the election.

Breakingdown News

As we all know by now she stormed back into the lead in New Hampshire by out-doing Obama in the mobilzing-of-a-record-number-of-voters stakes. So where does this leave the primaries? Well, it’s a sure bet that the democratic race will now settle into a standard drawn-out battle for Super Tuesday. Both candidates have shown their mettle and found their voices. Obama will continue pitching his promise of hope and change. Hillary will continue pitching her message of being up to the task and strong while not being afraid to show some emotion. And the Republican primaries will remain a very, very distant second as far as star power[3] is concerned.

Mike Huckabee tries to be as cool as Bill Clinton

But what I’m interested in is why Americans responded so strongly first to Obama and then to Hillary. What is it about that great(?) nation that makes them so absurd?
Through my visits to the US and my lifelong consumption of its media I’ve come to learn, among others, two things that seem to be ingrained deep in the psyche of the overwhelming majority of Americanos. And I believe that these two characteristics, bred and refined over generations, were demonstrated with unique power and in close succession in the Hillary v Obama drama.
But let me first say that while I consider these behaviours to be weaknesses in the US overmind/oversoul they are also two of the fundamentals that give the American nation is undeniable strength and part of the reason why they have come to dominate the planet. It’s swings and roundabouts, what the individual looses is gained by the group.
The two characteristics[4] that I believe drove the primary votes are, firstly, a very strong need to belong and, secondly, reverence for the act of ‘opening-up’.

Belonging

American kids are raised to(among other things) belong; belong to a family, belong to school, belong to a team. Nowhere in the world is the notion of supporting your school, your alma-mater as strong as in US college football. Men wear signet rings of the years that their schools won the State Championship with more pride than their wedding bands. When attending a conference they might remove their wedding band when screwing the PA, but no-sir that 1998 Mid-Western States Championship ring aint goin’ nowhere.
What makes this drive to belong even more amazing is that it isn’t seen as fear of isolation, people don’t join church groups and soccer lift pools and community watch teams and fucking veterans’ appreciation societies because they fear being isolated. Somehow they’ve developed an understanding that belonging is a positive thing, it’s warm and friendly and makes the world a better place. They really do believe in that shit. They really believe that there is no reason to not belong to every grouping imaginable because there’s nothing to loose. So what if we all wear identical uniforms when we go bowling or drive 9 hours in convoy supporting our school’s cheerleaders when they compete out of state, it makes us a community. It freaks me out that they don’t get the fact that while belonging to a group isn’t a bad thing it doesn’t come without a price, there always is a part of your individual identity that you have to give up.
And Barack Obama tapped into this glowing need to belong. He found his voice when he pitched himself as the man to change US politics once and for all – to deliver it from the evils of partisanship and self-serving infighting. But while his campaign advisors certainly did expect to get a big bite from disgruntled voters from this pitch I bet that never in their wildest dreams did they expect to pick up so many independent voters. In a veritable showering of love and belonging hundreds of thousands of independents have bought into Obama’s message and have joined him in his crusade. They’ve joined him and are ready to heal the world, because they know that Together We Can! Chant that until you puke.

I belong to Obama

Opening up

If there is one thing more bizarre about Americans than their overwhelming joy at belonging to something[5] it is their reverence for the act of opening up. There seems to be a subtle distrust of people who don’t share their feelings with the group. Reality TV is a prime carrier of this sentiment. In a previous season of The Bachelor one of contestants[6] was continually berated by the other chicks for ‘not sharing’. She was ostracized from the group and described as ‘not real’. Later during the season the chicks got together, after what seemed like several glasses of wine, and through a series of confrontations eventually this girl broke down and cried a little. She then sat down with the girls on the couch and explained how she was afraid of being hurt so didn’t want to show too much emotion but that she now realised that they would all support her blah blah blah blah. A later interview with the ringleader of the chicks was revealing; suddenly she ‘really appreciated’ how the first girl ‘opened up’ and ‘shared her feelings’. How fucked up is that?
And so, the voters responded when Hillary opened up, when she shared. And if there is one thing that is more powerful than simply sharing it is the redemption of a person who previously was cold and aloof who then opened up to the warm embrace of her loving community. Beautiful.

Obama got voters to join him in his quest, to be part of his mission. Hillary opened up and shared her hopes, dreams and fears with the nation. And for both of them the nation responded in a cascade of votes. An absurd and beautiful land.

[1] This is reasonable comparison given the fact that he is a truly fantastic orator.
[2] No-one has actually seen GW Bush cry while he’s been in office though many think that he probably does from time to time.
[3] Talk about mega-celebrity, Obama’s roadshow features Oprah and Hillary’s feature’s Bill – two of the most gifted entertainers of our time.
[4] Characteristic isn’t really the right word. These are so strong that I almost want to call them *shudder* values.
[5] Something, something! Anything!
[6] Who actually turned out to be the most interesting person by far

I am making a future prediction, illustrated by two future facts that will become common/indispensables in my lifetime. My prediction is related to the need to retain our private space in a world of accelerating density.

The first future fact is that the development/miniaturisation/integration of personal communication devices will produce within the next few years a range of in-ear noise canceling headsets similar to today’s bluetooth headsets. These will consist of two wireless in-ear headphones that incorporate noise canceling technologies similar to what have become so popular recently for in-flight headphones such as what are produced by Bose and other manufacturers.

Noise Canceling Headphones

These headsets will connect to our phone/music player/personal computer/whatever and integrate everything that we need to hear into one lightweight package. This is a no-brainer, obviously this will happen and soon. The development of these headsets will be driven by a massive rise in ambient noise that surrounds our daily life – traffic, crowds, machinery. Massive noise will make life without these headsets an unbearable medical threat. Several noise-related disorders and illnesses will become commonplace and both civic and militant groups will emerge to fight the noise that will overwhelm our world.

The result will be that we all will wear these headsets while at work, going about our business. The headsets will obviously be integrated with each of our personal area networks(PANs) meaning that they will be able to connect to other people’s headset when the two PANs intersect.
The interesting part of the integration of PANs and noise cancelling technologies is that this means that we will configure our headsets to block unwanted noises such as traffic while still allowing us to hear conversations around us. We will also configure these headsets with zones. Some examples of these zones include an office zone which will block all ambient noise but still allow us to hear all the conversations going on around us. A second zone, the social zone, will block the same ambient noise but still let us hear music (in bars and clubs) but will lower the volume of the conversations around us. Having to listen to other peoples’ conversations will become a choice, voyeuristic only. The social zone will still let us hear conversations from people who we let our PANs recognise as friends as normal. A third zone is the public zone which will block out all sound (including other peoples’ voices) except for those people who we let our PANs recognise as friends. We’ll also configure these zones to be tied to locations, i.e. when I enter my office building, switch to the office zone, when I go out to lunch switch to public and so forth.
I also predict that, shortly following noise canceling technologies, further developments will allow us to not only block incoming sound, but also the outgoing sound of our voices. The reason for this is because we would want our headsets to enable us to, at the press of a button, have private conversations with friends without those around us being able to hear it.

London Noise Map

Imagine what this means. Firstly, if you are walking down the, inevitably overcrowded, street and someone who you don’t know comes up to you you will be able to choose to ignore their voice totally. Their mouths will move but you won’t have to listen to shit. Poor people who cannot afford these headsets will permanently be begging strangers to allow them to talk to them. If only a future technology could block out the sight of a beggars as well – a perfect life.
Stroll down the street, someone comes up to you and starts spouting some bullshit about repentance, your headset’s friendly, customisable computerised voice says ‘Unknown person speaking. Do you want to listen?’

The second future fact in support of my prediction leads on from the future fact that due to the effects of Climate Change[1] even middle class families will entirely encapsulate their houses in climate controlled biodomes. Imagine your home and garden secure from the blazing sun and ravaging winds. With BioLife HomeDomes© you will be free to choose a cool mountain forest, a mild tropical sanctuary or, for the wealthy, a crisp winter wonderland; all at the press of a button.

For every home a Biodome

While these biodomes will initially be designed to protect a house and garden from the horrors of a weather system gone wild a major selling feature will become their noise canceling properties. I recently moved house to a much quieter neighbourhood than where I lived before and the effect on my quality of life has been marked. I sleep better, I can quietly sit still for longer. I read the newspaper more slowly, more thoroughly.
Within years the noise level of congested multi-leveled[2] 24-hour-a-day highways will make life in anything other than the most retreating exurbs unbearable. The solution will be provided by biodomes that enclose our houses entirely. Of course these will be fitted with discreet sound systems that produce soothing ambients sounds throughout your climate-perfect garden – a gentle babbling brook, birds in trees, the soft sound of the ocean. You will have all of this while keeping the ear-bleeding horrors of the unstoppable noise outside at bay.

Here is my prediction; noise cancellation – together with weather protection – will within years become the most important technology to own. What a dreadful thought.

[1] I don’t want to call it Global Warming since I suspect that this is too mild a term. Global Totally Fucked-up-Weather is more suitable. Floods, drought, cold, heat, wind, dust, mud, steam.
[2] Something that tremendously impressed me about Austin, Texas is their future minded approach to interstate highways in urban areas. Huge four-lane-either-way motherfucker highways that are stacked up to three levels on top of one another in sweeping flyovers five or ten stories tall.

The US again leads the way in absurdity. Black Friday is a US tradition[1] of massive one-day sales every year on the day after Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November and therefore the Friday is inevitably swallowed up into a mega-weekend like so much turkey. And it turns out that there is nothing that Americans like more after a wild oversize[2] meal than wild carnivorous shopping. Black Friday has over the years developed into the beginning of the end-of-year holiday shopping season and embraced by both shoppers and retailers as the arrival of Christmas cheer.

In the Bag

But there’s more to Black Friday that a bunch of overfed Americans stuffing their trolleys with bargains. The interesting part to Black Friday is in how it is run.
As an aside, the four years that I spent working for a large[3] retailer was some of the most interesting of my career. Retail is a fascinating business, not only because it is invariably the largest sector in any economy, but because involves such base merchandising and marketing techniques.
But back to business; the reason why Black Friday is such a bizarre thing is because it runs for a single day. It is one day of insane sales and rabid bargain consumption. And even more incredible it isn’t preceded by a deluge of advertising. Black Friday adverts are traditionally only published the day before, on Thanksgiving. So with only one day’s advertising US retailers manage to generate enough sales to have a measurable impact on the day’s Dow Jones results. So just how do they turn a post-holiday Friday into one of the biggest shopping days of the entire year? Easy, appeal the three m’s of American culture; more, more, more.
The first more is more bargains. Big box retailers such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy throttle every last discount cent from their suppliers[4] to offer buyers insane bargains like $230 notebook computers and $200 mega-televisions. The second more is more time to shop. Stores open at 5am on Black Friday. That’s right, 5am. The third more is more everything else. Retailers are laying on everything from in-store breakfasts to complimentary shuttles that will pick you up at your house and drive you 40 minutes to where the really big stores are.

Put these mores together and consumers have no chance. Imagine the scene; dad has his pants unbuckled in front of the TV, a teenage son withdraws his hand from the front of his girlfriend’s pants before stuffing his face with a handful of turkey and mom has the noospaper open: ‘G-o-lley! At 42 inch TV for $199! Doors open at 5!’.

The result is that as many as 132.9 million Americans are expected to hit the stores Friday, with 55.1 million of them expected to definitely shop.

So more it is then, more food, more shopping, more happiness, more death.
But sadly more is never enough; which is why Wal-Mart now start their Black Friday one day earlier(on Thanksgiving) and why the new hot shopping trend is Cyber Monday, the Monday after Black Friday when retailers dump, on-line, all the stuff they didn’t dump on Black Friday. See where this is going? Thanksgiving Thursday, Black Friday, Sunny Saturday, Super Sunday, Cyber Monday, Two-fer-one Tuesday, World domination Wednesday.

Around the Corner

The urban legend of Black Friday being the biggest shopping day of the year is not true, but it does consistently rank in the top half of the top ten. That honour goes to the last Saturday before Christmas, which makes sense. It is the absolute peak of the run-up to the biggest holiday in the world, a holiday built around buying gifts for other people.
But dig on Black Friday; the fourth biggest shopping day of 2002 and there’s no gift giving involved; no swell of valentine’s emotion, no halloween fun. What it is, is a sale that lasts a single day, preceded by just one day of advertising. It is – all you can eat.

I’ll leave the last gullet-stuffing word to Linda Ballew, grandmother and Wal-Mart shopper who steers two shopping carts down those wide and friendly aisles: “It’s just exciting, it’s wonderful to get out because it just puts you in the Christmas spirit”.

[1] the fact that I have to use that word in this context is absurd in itself.
[2] the fact that I use this word when referring to meals in the home of the Big Gulp is just as absurd.
[3] by South African standards – i.e. minuscule by global standards
[4] you didn’t think that they would absorb the cost of their ludicrous discounts themselves did you? Ha ha, no. Some Indonesian kid is being banged for that buck. Although, I should correct myself; the situation is not that simplistic. In truth the cost of the bargains will be offset by a pickup in sales of other normal-priced items and it is likely that the bargain items are part of much larger holiday season deals backed by volume rebates. But, no, Wal-Mart is not hurting from those $200 TVs.