Many Many articles on Google+ (at Techcrunch.comand ArsTechnica.co ) made me think a bit.

I’ve come to the realization that google+ is the next evolution of sharing+;  I mean, email sharing+ (and every thing in between). Seriously, If it were open source, if it worked with Google company profiles, I’d use it as email for a company.  It would be awesome. Here’s why:

As much as I think about the authority based access control (I get to control the content posted, what people see, and where people go) possibilities of Google+ let’s be clear about something. It is basically threaded email, which the User controls.  It allows the user (me) to limit who sees a post, to stop forwarding, to control commenting, and I can “recall” or delete a message (assuming I don’t send it to the person’s email, and it stays in g+), something that outlook (and every other email on the planet) fails to do.   Social, yes, but still, email +.  Why is it better than email? I have those same controls over video, pictures, and so on, basically, I have fine grain control over MY content, unlike Facebook or twitter.

No, I don’t need fine grain control over twitter, and I can surely do Facebook Lists, but that’s not the point is it? There is also gmail, hotmail, yahoomail.  I’m not saying it’s not the same, I’m saying it’s a better version of the same. Way better.

One big problem (which you identified) however is that people cannot jump into a “general” conversation I start. It’s not a forum, where anyone can join, answer, talk, and leave.  Such a place would be great, offering two types of control. “General 1” User retains control of their content, but the group controller can control the addition of new content or “General 2” The Group owner can impose more restrictive actions (halt commenting, sharing or even delete wall comments) in this case, users still can delete manipulate their own posts.

The first is great for a business page, and the second is good for just “announcements” like a blog page.  I would also as a company establish “group topic area’s’ and Work topic areas. So employee’s could follow the “new product ” design page or the “HR benefits package page.”

Think of it, a company using Google+ every employee all comments saved. (If they get fired, yes, some admin controls would be necessary for retention.), Topics pages could be established which Employee’s could follow, or Create. Team pages which anyone can join (which don’t exist, I can hope can’t it), but most importantly, email control.

I’m just saying, instead of trying to revolutionize “Social.” They should revolutionize sharing. Better than email, better than posting on some social site. My stuff, my control, all the time. Personal, Public, even in a company.

I can dream people, and you can too.

The Masses, those who have come to the internet now, the late adopters have recently run into something us long time users know: their are trolls amung us.
I bring this up because i’m starting to see more and more of these posts.  In the NY times, poor Richard made a (Gasp!) comment about Stephen Fry, the British writer, actor and television personality.  (he called his tweets boring).  The writers and actors of Stargate Universe are actually getting depressed.

These are choice examples, but still, a wave that’s growing.  From twitter under the control of it’s user mob. To backlash against something (google wave: at the time) not yet even finalized.
I have something to say to you all, thou i admire you all:  “Welcome to the internet.  Now ignore the fools on it and go back to doing awesome work.”

Trolling has but two purposes: Provoke a emotional “negative response” and make express a (angry) and not always wrong point of view. But Trolling, and getting yelled at have been part of life forever, using the internet just requires more “emotional armor” than most people are used to. Admittedly, many people have to have a thick skin to do their jobs (think journalist and Politicians.) but ordinary people are not prepared for “vitriol” backlash they get after posting an otherwise innocent comment.  Thank fully i spent many times back in the BBS and Forum era.  You learn to read and ignore something a majority of internet users are JUST coming to grips with.

What hurts, is that someone you don’t know, who knows nothing about you, feels the need to call you a “dirty, lying bastard who should have his mother killed” it shocks, it raises your hackles, but I have both sympathy and yet none.  If i say Madonna sucks, and her twitter 2000 followers get angry about it (i don’t even know or care if Madonna has a twitter account btw)… these are the same people who would (in the past) flood my email if they could find it, who would send me hate mail if they knew my address, but in reality, would share a beer with me at a pub or ask me a sane questions in real life (“Why do you think that?”).  The other 2 million people who care about Madonna don’t give a damn what i think!  They would just laugh of my comments and keep going with their decidedly busy lives (listening to Madonna i might add).

I say again. “Ignore the fools and move on.” better yet, Disenvowell them!

My word of Advice: No matter what you do, their  is ALWAYS backlash.  Accept it. It’s a bell curve.  Humans must disagree with each other.  It’s something we all know: The squeaky wheel get’s the grease;  the loud person is always listed to; Most people who write their congress men are the ones who disagree.

Furthermore, these people think they are in the majority (See Sanford Study) , often times, unfortunately, they are not.

We know they(Trolls & Angry Vitriol) are not in the Majority..

Sticks and Stones, people, sticks and stones.

New ways of tackling Cancer are always being highlighted, -See below- but, there have been no advanced  changes in the fight of this disease.  One thing that has been identified at contributing to this slowness is the funding process (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html?em ). We think there is something else, we think capitalism wide, there is no real incentive to cure cancer. It’s not a conscious focus, it’s just the situation we’ve worked ourselves to.  

Cures, we believe, are one of the true governmental fixable problems.  Governments should dive in, collecting the Altruistic focus of us all, and then, finishing, switch gears.   A government should decisively work on curing cancer or anything else (like how they fund DARPA – Five years, all the money you like).  But the time limit is important.  The problem with Cancer now (40 year later since Nixon declared war) is the number of industries dedicated to it and a bureaucracy self interested need to survive.  This self interest now prevails, in the funding system- no one wants to fund a bad Grant so the grant system plays it safe, and few “leaps” can be made without risk-, in the Drug dispensing system, in hospitals and so on.

Admittedly the medical business model – for profit healing-; is flawed.  It’s not even cancer; seriously, where was the last time we cured something?  The capitalist business model for subscription based essential goods (or perceived essential –like internet service) is too compelling, and profitable.   Game developers and applications developers do it, Cellphone providers are doing it.  These are sure fire cash flow and so are cancer drugs and charities and sponsorships.  Entire industries (which have matured for 40 years) now solely exist on the cancer existing. There are numerous charities, charities events, grants, section of the NIH (national Institute of Health) dedicated to cancer.  Think of all the men, women, and events that would need to go away, find new jobs or even have to learn an entire new skill if cancer were cured.

Curing cancer is an end to a cash flow stream.  It means a couple of treatments, then done, over.  No 20 years of drugs and $100,000 medical bills.  No need to explore being an Oncologist in Medical college.   But if we, as a species, are going to say “There is something more than survival of the fittest, but also the extension of a health species.” We can’t keep figuring costs into keeping our fellow human alive.”

Ok, we are being too cynical. But if we cured cancer to morrow, I believe we’d have to slow roll a cure in over 10 years, so people know it’s coming, wind down. If a miracle cure were delivered tomorrow, shock would hit the medical community; people wouldn’t know what to do with themselves.   And you thought the bank collapse of 2008-2009 was interesting.

Promising Cancer technologies: Lasers (directly burning the cancer, Sasers vibrating the cancer,  Blocking protein and toxin injections.)

Lasers in Cancer

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/therapy/lasers

Nano-tech laser kills cancer cells, leaves regular sells intact.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/august10/nanotube-081005.html

Injected Isotopes type Cures or Toxins

http://gizmodo.com/379952/guy-invents-potential-cancer-cure-with-radio-machine-built-out-of-pie-pans-and-hot-dogs

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/health/research/29drug.html?em

Iran with its unrest here in the June 2009 is learning a lesson that oppressive regieme seem to never learn, what those drunk on power never seem to grasp. If you are going to pretend to give people the right to vote and chose their own way, you cannot also treat them like complete sheep and idiots.

People will accept their injustice, their oppression to a degree, but they will not accept a shell game. What do i mean?

No Choice.

Back in the Old Soviet union (and lots of dictatorships like Iraq) people were given the right to vote.  There was one candidate and he generally won with 99% of the vote (and most of the population), even when most people stayed home.  The election was a sham, everyone knew it, and that was the state of things, you went on with your life.

Choice

In  contrast, in Venezula they had a close election, In America 2000, and 2004 they had a close election.  People were upset and they voiced it… and their countries and govenment still stand. Why…  Many countries have had close elections, there is always talk of voter fraud and ballot fixing, but in actually democracies, the expectation matches that of what has been reported in the run up. Further more after one side loses, and there is obvious bitterness, it’s not that people don’t take to the streets and protest, its’ that the ruling powers acknowledge their protesting and basically ignores them, until they tire and go home.

General Conclusion

In a true democracy (right to vote, press freedom, right to assemble and speak), or let’s say a place where even if people don’t believe their guy lost,  They demonstrate, They bitch and then, They move on, why? because they trust the eventually digging.  Those who lost, and who think they should not have lost never stop seeking answers, questioning every machine, balot, they file every legal challenge and WE LET THEM!  because, that way we let them exaust themselves.  They are not following some fallacy either. If they found evidence they know it would be reported, the courts would listen, etc

The Problem with Pretending.

Those pretending to be a democracy always overreach.  Instead, not only do they stack the vote but they also stack the vote into the unbelievable range.  This is their crime or, real mistake.  Then after some initial disturbances the ruling class feel so shaky, so not in control, they then crack down on the people.  Often enough, this works –people like living after all.

The cause of the disturbance is the same- overreaching.  Whether or not the Voting in Iran was fixed two things have happened.  a) the expectation of a close election was a landslide (over reach) and then, telling the people that protesting the result would have grave consequences. (over reach).

The fix would have been simple. Let the people have the retally and then bring the counting in close with expectation, say 52/48 and still declare your guy the winner.   After all, those pretending usually have control of the media. It’s too late now anyway. The people are starting to figure out their are more of them, than the ruling class. This will only end in blood.

In the end, Pretending you are a democracy is bad, or just works until fear grips the ruling class. Just admit you’re not, and people accept it because they understand it, they understand those rules.  The rules are not going to change suddenly.   The Mob does not like change they can’t anticipate.

“There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law” – Abraham Lincoln

Congress is pissed about the AIG bonuses (March 17, 2009), so am I. You should be pissed too, but let us be clear:  The law of unintended consequences states clearly; (paraphrasing) if you use a simple solution to fix a complex problem, you will end up with outcome you clearly didn’t foresee.  

As we’ve learned over and over again, anything Congress agrees to immediately is a BAD idea. Legislation that is decided in about a week is written too broadly and loaded with Anti- Constitutional bias, because, really, the constitution is there to help us stop our head long rush to bias.

Examples of Quick bad laws with unforeseen consequences:

• USA Patriot Act (eventually led to the Iraq war justification and wire tapping and GITMO)
• The TARP act – Seriously, how much money did we give them (800 Billion) and still had to do it again?
• And now a potential Tax on AIG bonus specifically?  Seems ripe with equal protection bias. 

The problem is, the Tax ability of Congress (per the XVI Amendment) is DAMN broad.  On One hand, the argument to kick AIG executives in the teeth feels good, (98% to 100% tax on those people getting bonuses!) sounds awesome, but congress shouldn’t do it. The old definition still works too: A simple system cannot effectively control or predict a complex system. 

Note: Now, I understand taxes (I don’t like paying them); I am not stupid. I know that taxes are necessary to run things.  It would be a nasty and silly idea to actually allow a government (especially a capitalist government, that can print its own money) to actually go into full on business to generate funds. It has different rules, makes the laws, and will tend towards monopolistic ideals.   However, I do agree that spinning off LLC’s and 501(c)(3) -not for profit) are good in my book. It also adds some independence to the process. Governments who was in charge of making money don’t like losing money, so things will be glossed over, money will be “switched.” etc, In general, the business cycle isn’t a nice place for a bureaucracy.

Yet taxing something at 100 or 98%? For only a few people? Oh that’s just ripe for court challenge. Tacked on laws –because you’re pissed- are bad policy. If the tax was previously there as a condition of taking the money –BEFORE HAND-, well that’s one thing, that supersedes contract, as you’d be entering into a new contract with full knowledge of what you are doing.  In that way, it’s akin to filing Bankruptcy, the genuine contract thumper.

Legal Arguments against the AIG bonus Tax: Fall flat, except on purely “you shouldn’t do it” terms.

On the Equal Protection side of the fence, you can say, Congress can tax Cigarettes, Alcohol, Gas, Clothing, etc, because I can chose not to buy that thing.  And it applies to any one who buys those things, so they can’t (or shouldn’t) tax me for things imposed upon me, or given to me, (like a bonus). Because the tax is so narrow, and Imposed upon me, it should clearly violate equal protection.

Except there is the gift tax (an imposed tax).  The gift tax Congress treats like “income.” for the person getting it. 

*While we are on the subject: This “income” is general already taxed money.  A good tax would be on “Winnings and landfalls.” like Vega or lotto but the inheritance tax is silly. Inheritance is a transfer of wealth, so Congress is basically taxing “my” death.  They are basically saying “We know you possibly couldn’t have paid all the taxes you had, so we’re going to hit you again just to make sure.”

Perhaps the law would be construed as TOO narrow, but….

As for the second option, snapping the contracts?  Government can’t break the contracts for giving out bonuses with a law that would cause a ripple effect like none other. If a person can’t believe in their contract, then the ink might as well be invisible.

One real option is to force AIG to give the money back Now and then when they do fail, to send it thru tried and tested laws, on Bankruptcy filings.

Laws should work for the populous, not be used to bludgeon something that really pisses congress off.   And yes, the populous is pissed, but Mob rule is not to be acknowledged, it is a rather nasty thing.  Think about the consequence of passing something immediately.  Who’s ever going to accept money? Who’s ever going to want to be a CEO?  How about a anytime people get pissed the CEO has his money taken away? You know a consequences of that? He no longer looks out for Shareholder Value, he looks out for his own value, and making sure his kids don’t starve.  Why take risks if you will be blamed for it in the future, why innovate you could be wrong.  Punishment is a deterent, but please, never discount –personal- need or greed. People will let a company fail if it means them get to get their money for X dollars in the end.

The point:  I say congress should look at the laws they have already on the books. Don’t make more bad law.   The Tax and financial codes are thick with rules. Use them or realize they truly do suck and then make better rules.

We in America, a society often so prudish we still we can get swift action on cursing TV but still can’t get the EPA to approve rules the court has approved to go forward. We have thought police and often, very often, our most anarchically enforced laws are social.

Now, many laws are on the books and fall silent, mostly because the shear number of rules produced yearly is often too much for any single person to know… there are thousands of laws and we break more than a few because we either don’t realize their is an associated law or can’t believe someone would make that a law.

Below are a few of the fun (and still enforced) laws.  Some call these blue Laws,(described in the General History of Connecticut as : bloody law; for they were all sanctified with whipping, cutting off the ears, burning the tongue and death. Gotta love the Puritans.

Blue Laws still enforced today. And when i say enforced, someone was arrested on it in the last 2000 era.

• In new york, You need a permit to allow more than 3 people to dance in your establishment.
• In Boston, more than 2 women who are unrelated living together is considered a bordello
• In Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia, Co-Habitation is still illegal
• In Clinton, Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car.
• In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!).

Some were struck down, only within the last few years (and i mean the 2000). I include these because they were recently enforced (which prompted their removal):

• Virginia, struck down prohibiting sex between unmarried people (2005)
• Kansas – Throwing a snow ball will get you $499 and jailed for 179 days (2004)
• NC Fined for having a lottery ticket by the police (2003) hopefully repealed as they have a lottery now.

Here are a few more if your interested. http://www.bertc.com/sexlaws.htm

Now, my post is not specifically about sex, those laws are just the eaiset to find;  And any country has really dumb laws. After all society’s change and who goes back to the 1600 to change a law?  I am dismayed and distrubed that someone felt the need to enforce the “bumb law” law while there is REAL and DETRIMENTAL problems in the world today.

It’s a simple fact of life that we’ve handed too much power to the state and the state can arrest you, because i am sure you have actually broken some unknown law today.  Infact, you’re proabbly breaking one now reading this. You’re information has already been handed over to the FBI by some large media company. I wish you luck.

Hopefully the ACLU will find you before they do.

Let us speak of protesting. Protesting is a something i believe in as strongly as breathing, just as a believe some of the things people in protesting are just plain dumb. I believe i have a right to this opinion as much as they have a right to declare civil disobedience as a means of protest.

The reason I think some protest are dumb is because I do not believe at shouting at a wall hoping the wall will move. My voice does not produce enough force to move the wall nor I doubt my voice can be heard on the other side. Adding more protesters to shout does not make the wall any shorter or thicker. I do think it would be better to use all those people to surmount the walls, by climbing, using tools and even, moving using the combined brain power to make the wall crumble.

These examples of getting past the wall are also examples of the art of war; and all successful protests really display these common grounds. The campaign against tobacco involved chipping at the wall piece by piece and removing large bricks. The Campaign to roll back laws start with attacking the most minor “acceptable” behavior which is utterly outrageous: like first placing of a obvious religious symbol in the court house steps (and not in the general architecture fresco of a building).

Publicity is a means of protest. Calling attention to the wall, lets others know it must come down, or that the wall even exists. This page does not assume all publicity is bad -Never should calling attention to an injustice be seen as inane…, unless you are just shouting at the wall.
Of no doubt you are with me so far, yet wondering what has brought about such ferocity to the examples of protest. Let’s just say I am protesting; I am Protesting not protesting. I am advocating civil disobedience, but at no time am I advocating violence. Enough Violence will be done to the protesters to satisfy our thirst for blood.

Pretending the wall isn’t there, and walking away, is however not an option after you see it.

In my job, I believe strongly in the “teach a man to fish” principle, and this is how i generally deal with computers and computers users.  People, because of the connivence of technology have worked out all manner of things that make their lives easier and yet terribly painful when unfamiliar.  

Take for instance, the cellphone; in the past, you knew your house, work, parents, friends, etc  phone number. Now, put your cellphone away and try to remember anyone. (btw, evidence is that girls are able to remember a friend, way more than any guy.)  But you can’t, most people remember their home (land line) work (maybe) This is one way, connivence has made us more dependent on technology. just like we rarely have hard copy pictures. 

But i could go on about technology making us just a little dumber (thou some say it’s making room for what’s truly important, just like memory. After all, why remember when i can google it?) 

my silent war is against the the computer: 

<rant>

The MAC

The Mac computer touts it’s simplicity, and ease of use, which is always funny.. for a big white web browsers.  There are two types of mac users. Those who use the hell out of it (and still ignore 90% of the software on it) and those who web surf and listen to itunes (and ignore 85% of the software on it). It’s a $1500 paperweight with fancy graphics for a vast majority of people.

It logs in automatically, why remember your password? It has keychain, why remember any passwords after the first time.  Need to move your user and such, mac will move them for you when you get a new one, and the rare applications you bought will be moved too. 

This is the holy grail, and I commend them. I personally love it for myself, and use my mac religiously.   The problem is when someone at work says “Why can’t we all get mac’s” (or pc’s”) so much easier? 

It’s not. 

• Your mac is not on a network with layered security, VLANS and VPN’s. 
• Your mac is not running mac software to access internal systems.
• Your mac is not the world as the rest of the world knows it. 
• Your mac does not have to deal with cross server permissions, SANS, NAS, and network switching protocols. 
• Your mac rarely has to deal with 20 venders, running their own systems, sending you different files for you to open using 10 different programs.

Your Mac is not better, you just haven’t tried to use the other 90 functions. Do you even know what all the icons in Applications do? What about system preferences? Why, you don’t care nor should you; and as a home users, it matters not.  But your mac is not the rest of the world.

</rant>

Computers in general:

Working one hasn’t really changed in a while, yet, “short cuts” (mac or pc) have actually made using a computer harder to use for some people. When i used to first set up a computer, I put short cuts everywhere… , which worked great! Until someone deleted a short cut. Soon I realized their world stopped when the shortcut disappeared, nothing  apparently could be done; They couldn’t find files, or servers, no one could navigate the menu system, or could find anything.  They would call me from home, asking how to use their computer, so they could work it as they did when at work. 

This, I had to stop.  These people weren’t dumb. What was the problem? Turns out I’m also a little different that most people. I’m curious about the software, program, item. I open every button, i click every link, I tweak every preference so i know what it does. Baring that most people are not this way, how could I get them to help themselves?

I therefore stopped using shortcuts. I deleted them where I could. I showed people where programs were in the menu and on the server and behold, my users were considered not just smart, but computer savy.  No matter which system they went to, they could work on it, because they knew where it was located when not immediately infront of them. 

Short cuts hurt. They hurt alot. The worse? Save your web password.  A password used every so often is remembered, one put into a “keychain” and then left for the 2 years you have the computer, is permanently lost when that computer is changed.  it’s also a security risk. I get into the master password, i get into all passwords. There was a time when Mac computers used to auto log on. On the Mac I changed it so it only displayed blank name and password.  Now every mac user in my building knows their user name and password. The pc users do not. Why? the PC remembers their user name, and willfully, humanly, they seem to have forgotten it.  Thou it’s there. Thou they look at it nearly 3-4 times a week, people don’t realize that’s their username, so when i work on a computer and leave “masteruser.” (because i can’t change the last user).  I know, (i know) I will get calls that say “It’s says i’m the masteruser. What’s the password for that?”

Yes, I cringe too.

Now, reading this your maybe shaking your head. “Man that’s dumb”, it is, and yet it happens, not because people are lazy (some are, yes), but because such learning is general unimportant to us.  These are smart, intelligent and well meaning people who just don’t care to know or have the time for something so trivial, especially if i am their google. 

I have engaged in this silent battle of training away human fallacy and ineptitude not by training classes, but by how I structure words, phrases, computer and settings. I also work hard at “teaching a man to fish,” (so he may feed himself)  and I make my users better people for it. The key is to not make it annoying, just deter bad behavior. 

How? For example. Billing for time is one of the most used practices in the Market. Both for advertising, and Lawyers.  Yet people did not fill out their time sheets. It’s time consuming and just …bleh. Everything was tried: Incentives, rewards, punishments.  Finally, a fellow computer user found the answer.   After 14 days of not doing your time your computer locked up. You couldn’t do anything. at this point, all 14 days had to be done in one sitting, or you had to explain to your manager why you didn’t do your time sheets (which was mandated by policy) due EOD daily.  The 14 days allowed flexibility, both for the diligent and the slackers. But the 15th day meant you got caught and there was no mercy for it.  After a 2 months in, only vacationers ever got caught on the time sheet program. 

My digital camera has 15 function button and a 220 page book, but what I like most? I press the button and I get a picture , it’s a nice shortcut, however, I STILL know what the other functions do, i doubt many people with a digital camera can say that. I tend to ignore bells and whistles until i know someone will use it. For instance, copiers come with dozens of functions now.  Right after they finish a pitch i usually ask “But does it copy.”  I don’t pretend my users will suddenly wake up and smell the roses, but i train them to.

So, hopefully, we have illustrated that people can be trained without sitting them in a room (which they ignore).  But the way we use technology only makes us dumber when we let it.  

I hope you remember this post, It’s about the EPA not enforcing a court order .  I also remind you about these two posts, one is on Presidents and choosing which laws to actually enforce (more, the executive branch) and the other is about News, and when you really should review it.  One will note this was a year ago, so it falls into the story is obviously crock (the one last year) turns out it was.

Well, in this update, it seems it’s not the EPA that was acting like a 12 year old, but the White House. What am I talking about, well, incase the article doesn’t link now, i’ll put the relevant quote.

The [Bush] White House in December refused to accept the EPA’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

Yeah, you read that right.  They basically went “Out of sights, out of mind.” Here is the part where I don’t get.  The White House didn’t open the email, so the EPA just stopped moving forward.  Just like that. They could have walked it over, or gone ahead an implemented the original, none stripped down plan.  The original plan called for strict regulation of motor vehicle emissions that may (i say may) have saved $500 million over it’s policy term.
Remember the days when people who had an actually objection did their job? or Quit? I do my best not to criticize the present administration because they are doing what they believe in, and I can’t for the life of me think they are trying to destroy America, but it’s too … secretive. If one came out and said. “That’s not what we believe, and so we arn’t going to act on it” Then I have, 1) a sense of conviction, 2) a Sense of where you stand, and 3) who you are as a straight talking person.

Now, there is so much tape of our government backtracking, rewording and sometimes blatantly lying I don’t know what to think. Our government has become a rebellious child, so spoiled and self righteous that I ask this? What do you do when a time-out doesn’t work on your child?

I wasn’t there for the punk movement that happened in the 80′s. That is, to say, I wasn’t conscious of what was going on. It’s hard to pay attention to musical happenings in 1985 when you’re 3 for instance. However, that doesn’t mean that by the time I discovered the music that the whole event has been lost to me. It was fascinating and invigorating for a teenaged suburban brat to discover Agent Orange’s “Bloodstains” or the Dead Kennedy’s “Holiday in Cambodia” for the first time. However sophomoric both of those songs might be, they still hinted at a world that was drastically cynical of a media environment. I took it to heart, because as a teenager that’s what you do. You’re looking to explain the world around you in some manner. Ten years later, and I still love the bands for the same reasons, and I haven’t forgotten how I felt. It puzzles me that others take a position of, shall we say, superiority. I am bleeding into criticism of such things as the Indie culture, but there is a defined snobbery that comes with the territory. Perhaps those individuals that were lobbying accusations of “poseurdom” in the 80′s have now grown up and believe that because they are no longer attached to their youth in any meaningful way that they are authorities simply because they were there. Even those that were intrical to the punk scene, like Henry Rollins, have a distinctive attitude of superiority.

Yes, it is true that people need to move on. It might be possible to live your life on the road, touring indefinitely, but it would most likely drag a person down. I don’t deny that. You need to eventually find something productive to do that allows you to think about maybe having a family or a home; something that you can find some amount of comfort in. This is a human instinct. However, this does not mean that you should profit off of the feelings that came with a younger sense of alienation. It does not give you license to demean and effectively shit on anyone that feels the same today. If you’re a journalist, it doesn’t really give you license to write about punk like it were a classical art form either, confining it to the annals of history. I think it does a disservice to the youthful sense of curiosity and great swelling emotion. When I see an article on such a subject, I feel like there is a robbery going on. The truth of the matter is that something like punk music belongs to more than just the journalists writing about it, or the people that participated in it early on. It belongs to the starry-eyed suburban kids too that are looking to make sense of the world they live in. It belongs to anyone that wants to claim it.

I am inherently suspicious of anyone that wants to claim an art format as their own, commenting on something as an authority and robbing someone of their right to experience and commentary. Reviewers of any sort in that sense display an aura of knowledge that really can’t be applied to individual human observance. When we apply attributes of “good” and “bad” to something it ends up establishing a meaningless arbitrary system of value.  In the end, I wonder if a person wrote something because they were paid, or because they felt like it actually contributed.