Remembering Juliet Anderson

The day before yesterday, I learned that Juliet Anderson had died last January. This made me very sad as she was emotionally significant to me.

She was a Golden Age porn star best known for her take-charge "Aunt Peg" persona and for starting Nina Hartley's career with the film Educating Nina, but I actually didn't know these things when I became acquainted with her. I've copied below a correspondence I had with her last summer.

From: <stripey7@yahoo.com
Subject: Happy Birthday!
To: "Juliet Anderson" <eyebrow@sonic.net [This was an "extremely private" address which she told me not to share with anyone. I didn't while she lived.]
Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 9:09 AM

Yours always,
Eric

P.S. I have more insight than I used to about why getting to see and meet you 23 years ago was so emotionally significant for me. I should set a side time to explain that at some point.


From: juliet <eyebrow@sonic.net
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday!To: stripey7@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 1:51 PM

Hi Eric,

Please do tell me why. Can it be in person or do you live too far
away?

I had a wonderful birthday.

Juliet


From: <stripey7@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday!
To: "juliet" <eyebrow@sonic.net
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 4:46 PM

Dear Juliet,

I'm in Philadelphia so I'll have to tell you long-distance. Here's the story.

As I grew up I became pretty shy and introverted. I didn't seem to have many points of commonality with my peers, who were usually much less intellectual and very mundane in their interests. I eventually becamecurious about my parents' radical politics, and what I read of them made sense to me. Partway through high school I decided to get involved myself, in the youth group of the same party in which my parents had met and with which they still sympathized. In addition to a desire to make the world better, I was conscious of the hope that this would provide a circle of friends with whom I would feel something significant in common.

I was a member of the group for a year and a quarter or year and a half (1978-79). Partway through this period, the chapter organizer asked to have a meeting with me. He seemed concerned that I "lacked confidence in the leadership" and suggested I should leave the group. This apparently stemmed from an occasion on which, after the national leadership had come down in favor of the position I'd taken on a local political issue (in which I had been alone), someone had said to me jocularly, "Don't get a swelled head," and I had replied, very logically as it seemed to me, that of course I wouldn't get a swelled head, since the Political Committee's statement didn't mean that my position was right, but rather that their position was right. It would still be the right position whether they had taken it or not. This seemed to me to be practically a tautology, yet my interlocutor reacted as if I'd said something strange and disturbing, which mystified me at the time.

So the chapter organizer was pursuing this idea that I "lacked confidence in the leadership." I denied this, and in fact I hadn't volunteered any disagreements with them. Rather, the organizer was asking me if I had any. The only issues I could think of were a couple I had seen debated in the discussion bulletin of the adult organization, and even of these, I only was inclined to the minority position on one. I was inclined toward the leadership's position on the other, and just wasn't 100% certain about it. And these were really minor issues too, not core principles of the group. Yet, incomprehensibly, on this basis Bob repeated his contention that I "lacked confidence in the leadership" and should consider leaving the group. When I again denied this, he asked me if I would support their position in that case. I said of course not, because I didn't think it was correct. So Bob again claimed that I lacked confidence in the leadership and should perhaps leave the group. We seemed to be talking in circles. The meeting eventually ended with nothing resolved.

A couple months later, Bob asked to have another meeting with me. This time his expressed concern was that their was evidence of my having acted inappropriately on various occasions, which he described as a "pattern of sexist behavior." It was apparent that in some cases he simply had his facts wrong, and that what he was asking about was based on one half of a phone conversation, overheard, and not a complaint that someone had actually volunteered. In other cases the incidents had occurred, but were basically manifestations of social ineptitude rather than attitudes about gender. Since I knew that I did have significant problems relating socially, I ended up agreeing to leave the group, even though I didn't think the way the issue had been characterized was fair. I was very upset and rather depressed at this turn of events.

I had considered myself a Marxist for a few years before I'd joined the group or even made contact with it, however, so this experience didn't affect my convictions. It didn't even affect my opinion of this group in particular, since I had accepted the greater part of responsibility for having to leave it, and since, to the extent I felt misunderstood, I saw this as the problem of one or two individuals. So I continued to regard myself as a sympathizer, until later the group's own politics began clearly to change.

Before continuing with the chronological narrative, I want to fast-forward to a few years ago, when I finally acquired some insight into what had happened. This came while I was reading a paper by Dennis Tourish of the University of Belfast, titled "Ideological Intransigence, Democratic Centralism, and Cultism: A Case Study from the Political Left." I'd been developing an interest in the cult issue for the past several years, ostensibly from concern about a group a romantic interest was involved with; but for the first time I was reading about my own experience. Although it was a different group, I recognized the same mechanisms of milieu control and thought stopping that I had been subject to.

I suddenly had a whole new framework in which to understand what had happened. Things that had simply been mysterious fell into place when seen as part of a program of brainwashing, aimed at destroying my intellectual autonomy. I saw clearly, for instance, that Bob was "loading the language" (as cultic studies people say) so that "confidence" in someone -- which normally just means thinking they're basically good and honest -- instead meant surrendering one's independent judgment to them. In retrospect, one might wonder why I didn't point that out at the time; the reason is that Bob's whole manner was one designed to keep me off balance, so that I didn't even have the chance to form such thoughts, being kept too busy coping with his assault. (For that matter, it occurs to me that I might have asked, "If these disagreements mean I lack confidence, does that mean the members who raised them in the adult organization should leave the group too?" But, again, I was kept too off-balance to even think of something like that.)

Of course the attempt at brainwashing hadn't been successful, which was why they decided to get rid of me. But they had succeeded in masking the nature and motive of what they were doing, and as a result I'd taken blame that didn't belong on me, affecting my self-confidence. In particular, the issue they used to make me leave the group had played on my social and sexual insecurities, and consequently made them worse.

But what I couldn't yet handle emotionally, I intellectualized instead. From having been rather prudish through most of my adolescence, I became by mid-college years rather passionate about sexual freedom. I wasn't getting to practice it, mind you (except, briefly, with one girl who told me she'd been diagnosed as "hypersexual"), but I believed in it very strongly. Above all, I passionately opposed any treatment of sexual feelings or of honesty about them as illegitimate or "sexist." Yet the group's methods had been so sneaky that I failed to recognize where this attitude came from, or to ponder how it had changed so radically since junior high.

So, a couple years after graduating college, I see a local news segment about lesbian porn. I had not heard of such a thing before and was quite intrigued. I knew that I liked the idea of women's manifesting their autonomy by freely expressing their sexual interests. Of course, at the time I had no idea why I felt this so strongly; I only knew that I did.

The segment mentioned two publications, one of them based in the US: On Our Backs. So before long I visited the city's gay and lesbian bookstore to see if I could pick up a copy. I made no assumption about whether I would personally find it erotic; I just knew it would be very satisfying "politically" (or at bottom, as I now understand, emotionally) to see its existence for myself and to feel that I was supporting it. And in that first issue of OOB that I bought, I saw an ad by someone named Juliet Anderson, who was looking for people who could help her with a project to make lesbian erotic videos. Although I had no special skills to contribute and little money, I wanted to help if I could, so I called the number in the ad and talked to you.

You said you weren't ready to look for investors, but asked where I was, and when I said Philadelphia, told me you would be in Camden in a couple weeks for a live performance, and invited me to come. So I did. I got to talk to you for a moment and had my picture taken sitting in your lap with a big silly grin on my face, which you autographed. I had that picture for many years, although I seem to have lost it during a hasty move in 2000. Since then, however, you've sent me a postcard personally in reply to an earlier birthday greeting, as well as another autographed picture which I ordered from you.

But I appreciate now that the reason meeting you was so meaningful for me was that you negated, "in the flesh" so to speak, the feelings of guilt and anxiety about acknowledging my sexual feelings, with which my forced departure from the YSA (effectively an expulsion, since I'd been threatened with a "trial" if I didn't leave of my own accord) had left me. Basically, you helped show me that I wasn't crazy.

Thank you.

Yours,
Eric


From: juliet <eyebrow@sonic.net
Subject: letter
To: stripey7@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 11:14 PM

Hi Eric,

Thank you for the birthday greeting and your very interesting letter about how I had such a positive effect on you. Wow! Little did I know.

Keep living life to your fullest and with love and compassion.

Juliet

Juliet's performance, which I saw in 1986 when I met her in person, was a sort of burlesque in which she started out dressed for various occupations -- carpenter, secretary, executive, nurse -- and then did a striptease, with the message that women in any line of work could be sexy. I wasn't in touch with her again till after discovering her website in 2004. I called her early in January 2005 and we talked about her career and its significance. I subsequently started sending greetings for her birthday (23 July), including a card I mailed her this past 22nd, before realizing she'd died.

For those who may be interested, she told me in 2005 that her favorite of the porn films she'd made was Talk Dirty to Me.

I've somewhat belatedly posted an additional reply to a comment on one of my posts a few months ago, concerning The Hunger Project. You can read the original post and replies at: http://stripey7.blogspot.com/2010/02/hunger-project-gets-free-ride-on-world.html. The gist is that the very speed with which the comment appeared supports my contentions.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I should acknowledge here that not all Large Group Awareness Trainings -- the general category into which est and its successor, Landmark Forum, fall -- are hardcore cults. Many people have been involved in them at a low level without apparent psychological harm. At the same time, several cases of acute responses to such trainings, involving psychotic breaks and requiring emergency psychiatric medication, have been reported, as described in chapter 13 of the book Recovery from Cults. At the very least, one can say that it appears such groups often fail to have mental health professionals present at trainings who can and will recognize when someone has been adversely affected and will intervene in a timely fashion.

Fun with Fortune Cookies

This evening I attended an event at which Democratic committeeman Bill Morris endorsed Green Party candidate for state representative Hugh Giordano. Afterwards I went with the two of them and several of Hugh's supporters to a Chinese restaurant.

As the meal was ending I introduced Hugh to the Fortune Cookie Game. For anyone who doesn't know this game: before someone opens and reads his fortune, another person at the table asks him a question, to which the fortune will serve as an answer. The object is to pose a question that guarantees the answer will be funny.

Hugh and Bill had been talking a good deal about another Democrat in their neighborhood, Lou Agre, whom they clearly don't care for. So it was obviously with tongue in cheek, and manifesting a good understanding of the Fortune Cookie Game, when Hugh chose to ask me, "Will I get Lou Agre's endorsement?"

The answer I read from the fortune was so apt that I could hardly finish reading it without cracking up: "Stop searching forever, happiness is just next to you." I commented that that sounded like a "No." It might be interpreted further as saying Hugh shouldn't want Agre's endorsement, but mine (or alternatively that of his girlfriend, who was sitting on his other side).

Tom Tomorrow hits the nail on the head. I drive it in further.

Tom Tomorrow hits the nail on the head with his latest strip, The Sensible Liberal's Guide to Sensible Liberalism in the Age of Obama." I think one of his points could use some elaboration, however.

He satirizes "sensible liberals" as saying, "Either we politely overlook [Obama's] record on habeas corpus, rendition,...[etc., etc., etc] -- or Sarah Palin wins in 2012 -- guaranteed!" He properly derides this craven attitude, but doesn't explain why it's so very, very wrong.

Here are the political mechanics: When progressives protest Obama's not-so-progressive policies, the effect is to shift the axis of debate to the left. This makes Obama look more moderate by comparison with the protesters, and thereby helps him with the centrist "swing voters" in 2012. Call it the Martin/Malcolm effect, if you will.

To be sure, such protest may also allow (or push) Obama to adopt more progressive policies than he otherwise would have — but only to the extent that the shift in political climate that the protests have effected lets him do so without losing political ground. So the notion that the GOP's chances will be improved is completely baseless. Just the opposite is actually the case.

Great political thinkers have understood this principle. The father of modern liberalism, John Stuart Mill, for instance, was not a political socialist (although he did favor cooperatives). Yet he supported the socialist movement anyway, as he explained in his autobiography, because he saw that the fear of socialism was what would motivate the middle classes who held political sway to enact reform measures that he did support.

Principled progressives have no reason to fear that protesting Obama'a bad policies will help the Right. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote of the Month

"The cult problem is so prevalent, the chances of a family member joining a cult are greater than a family member catching chicken pox, 4 times greater than contracting. AIDS, 90 times greater than comtracting measles, and 45,000 times greater than comtracting polio." -- the late Dr. Paul. Martin, quoted on a poster at the International Cultic Studies Association meeting under way in Ft. Lee, New Jersey

Had an interesting insight today while reading City Paper's "I Love You, I Hate You" page. This is a section where people post anonymous messages to each other.

One of them, titled "Lecherous Septuagenarians," addresses an elderly man who keeps trying to pick her up in the park with cliched lines like offering to be her literary agent. But what rang a bell was where she says, "I don't want you to put me up in one of your cut-rate apartment complexes because you feel that the neighborhood where I live is 'unsafe.'"

You see, early last year I was volunteering at the monthly mailing party for the William Way Community Center, and got into a conversation with a somewhat older man there. At the time I had recently acquired a second-hand computer and was trying to determine if there was a way around its apparent inability to "ping" with an HSI service. So this man told me he knew someone who could supply me with used accessories such as might serve to help get me online with this older computer (the one I'm typing on now). In return, he said, he could use some help locating an affordable place to rent in the Poconos where he could vacation. He said he had little computer experience and wondered if I would help him locate such a place.

Well, it seemed like a reasonable proposal. Perhaps this arrangement would give me some practice in the ways of making new friends, which was my main reason for volunteering.

But soon I started to feel differently. The speed with which he seemed to expect me to proceed with it, including rendezvous to pick up accessories etc., made me start feeling that I was no longer in control of my own time. I get a very, very, bad reaction to feeling that I've become "entrained" by someone else's agenda. Likely this particular sensitivity stems from my cultic experience earlier in life with the Socialist Workers Party.

At the same time, he seemed to be going way too fast with other ideas as well. He said that, once he'd succeeded in renting a lakefront place with my help, I would of course be welcome to spend time there. And he also solicitously advised me to move out of my current building because it's in an "unsafe neighborhood." This, of course, was what rang the bell in my head while reading the ILUIHU.

He said he could help arrange for me to rent a place in his area, which he said is safer. It didn't help that he elaborated by explaining that he'd read some sociology and knew that there was more crime in "black" areas -- while hastily adding that he wasn't prejudiced. Nor that the neighborhood he was suggesting I move to is reputed to be lily-white. In fact, I've spent nearly all my adult life in areas that others have told me are "dangerous," without once being the victim of street crime. So I've become pretty skeptical of such admonitions.

Within a few weeks of meeting him, all these things were making me increasingly uncomfortable. His seemingly solicitous manner and the speed with which he was pushing things felt presumptuous -- he seemed to be assuming a closer relationship than I had agreed to or even imagined, based solely on what initially seemed like a fairly casual exchange of favors. There was also one point where he criticized something I had done because, he said, it showed I didn't have enough confidence in him. (Unfortunately I can't remember now what it was.) This really rubbed me the wrong way since he hadn't given me any reason to have confidence in him. Being asked to have "confidence" when it doesn't appeared merited is another sensitivity rooted in my cultic experience, where I was told that disagreeing or even doubting the leadership's positions on what seemed like minor questions meant I "lacked confidence in them" and should leave the group.

So I decided I wanted out of this arrangement, and told him so at the next opportunity. He remarked that he supposed he would have to retrieve the accessories he'd lent me, and I agreed. And then something odd happened: he never got back to me about them. They're still sitting in my closet over a year later, and at this point I have to figure he was never seriously interested in getting them back.

I hadn't had much occasion to reflect on this till now, but after reading the ILUIHU it occurs to me that maybe getting a lakefront place to summer was never his primary interest. Perhaps he was mainly interested in getting into my pants, and this was just how he hoped to do that. Or perhaps it was a combination.

While at the time I internally verbalized my feelings as being about "presumptuousness" or "going too fast," I couldn't put my finger on just what made me so uncomfortable. Having another person's similar experience to compare it with, I now realize that this is probably just about what people mean when they describe someone as "sleazy" or "creepy." So, now I've experienced that for myself -- just one of the (more dubious) benefits of being less withdrawn than used to be.

P.S. I also recall that in our initial conversation, he went into some depth about some family conflicts he'd endured. This elicited some sympathy from me, even though I noted the rather self-congratulatory way he presented his own noble role in the conflict. But after the other objectionable things started accumulating, I think that added to my judgment that this was someone I didn't want to be involved with.

In her latest column for the Philadelphia Weekly, Tara Murtha addresses radio station B101's refusal to air a public service ad about child sexual abuse unless the words "rape" and "sexual" are deleted (!) . This prompted the following letter from me:

It's appalling that B101 refuses to air ads about child rape unless the words "rape" and "sexual" are removed. The following quote reflects an attitude that's all too prevalent: "'Mommy, what's that mean?' is a phrase that makes [parents] feel that we have let them down as a radio station."

Correction: if parents can't handle this question, it means that they as parents have let their children down. Such enforced ignorance makes children far more vulnerable to rape.

If they are to be empowered to resist unwanted sexual attentions, children must get a clear message that they own themselves and are entitled to decide for themselves what is "good touch" or "bad touch" — not have such judgments imposed on them by adults under the name of "love" or "protection."

Hopefully, if anyone suspects a child is being abused they will, if possible, go to the child first with child-centered, non-leading questions like "Is someone hurting you?" or "Is someone doing something that makes you feel bad?" In this way abuse won't be swept under the rug, nor will children be traumatized by memories confabulated — or redefined as "bad" — in response to adult suggestion.

I've subsequently visited the website for the Hero Project, which sponsored the ad. Much of the information on the site is valid. For instance, in line with what I wrote above, it urges that parents tell their children to let them know if someone is doing something that makes them uncomfortable. And many of the potential symptoms they list are indeed indications that something disturbing is happening in a child's life.

A couple of the supposed warning signs give me pause, however, such as "age-inappropriate" sexual knowledge and "excessive" masturbation. Given the still common attitude that children should be asexual and ignorant, these could easily be interpreted in a way that simply reinforces the repressive messages that emotionally victimize children as well as make them easier prey for sexual abuse. Indeed, one might logically suppose that if a child is masturbating more than before, it reflects an experience that's made her/him more aware of her/his potential for sexual pleasure -- the opposite of what an abusive experience would do. Intervening on this basis seems more likely to disrupt a positive relationship than a negative one. Some adults have stated that they are glad no one else found out about such positive childhood experiences with older people, or complained that the reaction of other adults to the discovery was emotionally traumatic for them. (See, for instance, this paper by Joan Nelson, Ed.D., who herself had such an experience.)

Further, it's been documented that psychological trauma doesn't generally result from childhood sexual experiences unless they are physically traumatic, or accompanied by emotional abuse such as threats. This was the point of the Rind-Bauserman-Tromovich study that evoked such conniptions in politicians (egged on by physiologist "Doctor Laura" Schlesinger) several years ago that they pulled the un-Constitutional stunt of passing a resolution condemning the American Psychological Association for publishing the study in their journal. It's also dealt with in depth by Susan A. Clancy in her book The Trauma Myth.

This leaves me with a mixed mind about complaining to B101 about their decision. The cowardice that motivates it is certainly disgusting, but I wonder whether their changing it could do more harm than good. But at least I've made my own view public with the letter above, and I'll also post a comment on the paper's site just in case the letter isn't published.

Preserving Forgotten History

The screening last night of Sir! No Sir! and FTA was quite inspiring. It felt good to see the kind of mass antiwar movement that existed among soldiers in the Vietnam era, with the hope that something like it can come again.

I was too young at the time to be involved or have much understanding, though I probably had more awareness than most children my age because my parents, while of an older generation themselves, were radical and had many friends who were politically active.

I spoke to the director of the GI Press Project, James Lewes, after the screening to tell him about my father's role in organizing an antiwar march by WWII and Korea vets, in Gettysburg in 1964. While Lewes' focus is on preserving newsletters made by active-duty GIs, we exchanged emails so I can look into donating or lending the photos I inherited to some appropriate collection.

Not Abducted by Aliens, Yet

Recently I visited a bookstore while perusing the event listings in a local weekly, and noticed one for a meeting of a UFO discussion group, being surprised it seemed to be meeting at more than one venue. Walking into the cafe part of the bookstore and sitting down at a table, I was surprised to discover that this was the group that was meeting there, not another meeting that I was interested in. In fact, it was specifically a meeting for "abductees."

I started looking back in the paper to find the right listing and then, looking up to explain to the person sitting closest that this wasn't the meeting I'd meant to be at, I noticed an alien standing at the other side of the table -- the classic Hollywood kind. Feeling somewhat alarmed now, I again looked in the paper to try and sort things out -- only now I saw aliens in the paper too, even in pages I thought I'd looked at already. Realizing this wasn't possible, I said, "How can they be in the newspaper?" and then "This has to be a dream! This has to be a dream!" I then shook myself awake.

Even as I went to the kitchen for a drink of water, I couldn't shake off the irrational feeling that maybe this was now bound to happen again and again, as "abductees" experience. Partway into the next dream, I began to see the evidence that this was a dream too, and decided to do the same thing again. Perhaps I wanted to reassure myself that I could in light of the residual unease from the previous dream. Then, while still in bed, I tried getting back into the dream, since it hadn't been unpleasant and I'd been talking to someone pretty. Unfortunately I'd awakened too far already for that.

The fact of this ability would seem to make me an unlikely candidate for the sort of hypnopompic-hallucination-with-sleep-paralysis that probably underlies the "abductee" experience.

Before I'd learned it, however, I did once have such an experience, when I was eight. My parents had someone over and gave them my bed for the night, so I had to sleep on a couch in the living room. There was a rainstorm outside. After a while I awakened, and the sound of the storm had been replaced by that of a party, as the room was now filled with people. I decided to get up, starting by raising my right forearm. I saw that I'd raised it, but still felt it lying at my side, making it seem that I had three arms. This frightened me awake. The room was still dark and empty and the rain was still falling.

Evidently I'd been experiencing perceptions from my senses (waking mode) together with perceptions from my imagination (dream mode), generating a perceived anomaly. But I don't recall any hypnopompic hallucinations subsequent to that one.

Back in the real world, here's an upcoming event that's most worthy of support:


View this message online CLICK HERE

The GI Press Project presents a special screening of Sir! No Sir! and the Philadelphia Premiere of FTA. Local efforts increase to preserve anti-war papers by Vietnam vets.

Contact:
Gina Renzi
Director, The Rotunda
mailto:Rotundagina@TheRotunda.org

What: The GI Press Project presents a special screening of Sir! No Sir! and the Philadelphia Premiere of FTA in order to raise funds for and awareness of the rarely seen Vietnam-era Underground Press.

When: Wednesday June 23, 2010@6pm

Where: The Rotunda, 4014 Walnut Street, Philadelphia

Why: In the Vietnam War era, anti-war members of the US military and their supporters found voice for their concerns in what eventually added up to hundreds of underground newspapers produced and circulated everywhere, inside the Pentagon itself, aboard ships at sea, and on and around military bases around the world. With names such as Left Face, About Face, Harass the Brass, A Four-Year Bummer, The Fort Polk Puke, RITA, FTA, Marine Blues, and Rough Draft, they served as an organizing tool, a platform for discussion of issues the military chain of command should have cared about but didn't, and a way of letting the rest of America know that opposition to the war was widespread in the armed forces.

These newspapers, largely overlooked by historians, had great impact at the time and are now in danger of being lost altogether. They were generally printed on cheap paper that will crumble to dust before too many more years pass. To insure that this legacy and effort is not lost, a GI Press Preservation Project has been launched in Philadelphia, where several of the best collections of Vietnam-era GI newspapers are located. James Lewes, who worked on the GI Press part of the movie Sir! No Sir! is spearheading an effort to digitally copy all still-existing copies of Vietnam-era GI newspapers so that they will not be lost to history when the paper they are printed on crumbles and can be shared more widely and take their rightful place in the history of the Vietnam War and the GI Movement that opposed it. To help raise money and bring attention to the project, James Lewes will be showing the films Sir! No Sir! and FTA at The Rotunda, 4014 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

About the films

Sir! No Sir!
This feature-length documentary focuses on the efforts by troops in the U.S. military during the Vietnam War to oppose the war effort by peaceful demonstration and subversion.

FTA
A documentary about a political troupe headed by actors Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland which traveled to towns near military bases in the US in the early 1970s. The group put on shows called "F.T.A.", which stood for "F**k the Army", and was aimed at convincing soldiers to voice their opposition to the Vietnam War, which was raging at the time. Various singers, actors, and other entertainers performed antiwar songs and skits during the show.

Admission is free, but donations are encouraged.

From Labor Notes: Brazilian Union Assists Land Takeovers, Showing the Power of a Good Example

Gathering, Not Hunting

I recently hit on another way to take myself out of my mental comfort zone, and tried it today. I knew there was at least one item I wanted to buy at Rite Aid, but instead of going directly to where I might expect to find it, I made myself walk slowly along each of the aisles, simply scanning the shelves to see if there was anything interesting there. If I saw something, I would then consider whether it was something I ought to buy now or sometime soon. This may seem pretty quotidian to some, but for me it wasn't, because my whole life I've shopped exclusively in "hunter" mode, knowing what I planned to get when I went in and aiming straight for it. This fits into my general pattern of needing a well-defined purpose all the time and not easily getting comfortable with non-directive activity. I knew, therefore, that this exercise would be a stretch for me, one that I hope (especially with repetition) will help me learn to be less anxious and more able to live in the moment. The proof that this actually was a stretch lay in how I felt as I was doing it. It was a slightly heady feeling, a bit as if I were floating -- an appropriate metaphor in that I had intentionally let go of the "mooring" of being fixed on a purpose. Also today, in view of my clear pattern of procrastinating about clubbing, I decided that starting immediately I will set aside an amount from each pay deposit for that purpose, so I won't spend it on something else and then have the excuse, "Oh well, I can't afford it now." I intend by this means to ensure I get out to a club once a week, instead of only a few times over the past several months.

Show Developing for Humanist Arts Circle

I've lately become involved in a humanist creative arts circle, and its organizer Martha Knox is working on having a show of all our work. She's proposed calling it "Humanist Voices," and you can see some of each member's work here: http://marthaknox.squarespace.com/humanist_voices/

Quote of the month: "The very idea that pacifist, feminist, Jewish, and Christian organizations like CODEPINK, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the American Friends Service Committee would ally with a violent, misogynist, Islamic group like Hamas - much less any group that engages in terrorism - should be recognized as absurd on face value. When prominent Democrats - including the head of the House subcommittee on terrorism - imply that leading American and Israeli peace groups are linked to terrorism, it is no longer simply heated rhetoric in defense of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, but a dangerous attack on civil liberties." -- Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus, 11 June (thanks to John Kirkland for forwarding this) Well, my Census job wound up Thursday, having started 27 April. It was interesting albeit sleep-depriving, and earned me $1150 -- plus a couple more payments yet to arrive, which will be relatively small since there was less work to do toward the end as we were increasingly left only with "hard cases."

Principal Needs Refresher on Constitutional Rights

Dan Savage has brought another example of puritanical persecution to our attention with the case of a high school coach who was fired for sending "adult-oriented pictures" to his girlfriend, a college student. The principal, Donna Richardson, defends her action with talk of teaching students to become "good characters," but evidently needs some instruction in this department herself. In a case like this it seems appropriate to emphasize the pedagogical issues, so I've sent the following message to her email address (richardsod@duvalschools.org):

Dear Ms. Richardson: I am very disappointed by your dismissal of Jason Robinson. By taking this action, you have set a very bad example to the students under your supervision. You have modeled: 1) Endorsing and rewarding the violation of someone's privacy; 2) Punishing other people's consensual activity; and 3) Worst of all, by implication, attempting to coerce other people's consensual activity through threats to their livelihoods. By doing these things, you have sent all the wrong messages to students about responsible behavior as members of a democratic society. It is urgent that you rehire Mr. Robinson, which would have the added merit of modeling the ability to admit when you have made a mistake. To refresh your own appreciation of these principles, you might do well to re-read the Declaration of Independence. For a more in-depth treatment of them, you could also read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

You can read more details of the case in Savage's column here: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4180588

Well, I had a gratifying experience today. I recently had been thinking that if someone asked me for change, instead of simply giving them money I should offer to pay them for doing something, e.g., singing their favorite song. The first time I was solicited today, I tried doing this, but found myself unable to. My social anxiety was getting in the way -- the fear of my offer's being rejected -- and so I ended up just giving him change. Now, in addition to my original motives, I saw also the importance of achieving this as an "exposure" to an anxiety-inducing situation. A little later I saw a second opportunity approaching. This time I prepared by going into "trance" for a second so I could make the offer without thinking about it. Far from being offended, he readily complied, and sang an entire song ("Love on a Two-Way Street") that he evidently had committed to memory. It was very pleasing to be honored in this way with something he loved, and to be able to not only pay him but give honest praise too. Persisting afterward was a heady feeling from having done the "impossible," like that I first had on 2 July 2005 after introducing myself to several attractive strangers that day (with the difference that going into trance took more effort back then).

Porn You Can Salute and 11 Years of Space Docking

I attended a cool event last Friday titled Porn You Can Salute, a workshop on alternatives to mainstream pornography. It was presented by a new group called Screw Smart, which is about promoting sex-positive, queer-positive sex education to the public. We had an erotic "exquisite corpse" exercise -- the first such I've participated in -- followed by screenings of several varieties of alternative porn. Their web site is www.screwsmartly.com.

This Saturday I'm going to a night of sf-themed comedy called 11 Years of Space Docking. I saw the flyer for it at the Green Line Cafe when I was there last Thursday for the humanist arts circle.

Narconon (Scientology) Promo Piece Appears in Public Record

Last week's issue of the Philadelphia Public Record included an article about a club drug called mephedrone, toward the end of which it became apparent the article is meant to promote the Scientology-connected Narconon program. After doing a little homework I submitted the following letter.

Dear editor: Your last edition features an article titled, "New Club Drug Endangers Many Lives," which promotes the Narconon organization and may be assumed to reflect its views. While I claim no expertise on club drugs, Narconon is not a credible source of information. As discussed on Wikipedia, Narconon was founded by Scientologists and continues to be run by them. The Church of Scientology opposes all use of psychoactive substances, even those legally prescribed by psychiatrists or other doctors. They ignore or misrepresent any evidence that such drugs can be beneficial because it is an article of religious faith for them that they can't be. Scientific and medical authorities have widely rejected Narconon's claims. In 1991, for instance, the Oklahoma Board of Mental Health denied them a license, saying that "credible evidence establishes Narconon's program is not effective," and adding that "the program offered by Narconon-Chilocco is not medically safe." Similarly, in 2005 California's superintendant of public instruction "officially recommended that all schools in the state reject the Narconon program." Wikipedia also reports that Narconon has been linked to two deaths. In addition to direct medical hazards from a program that is faith-based rather than evidence-based, Narconon is accused of being a front for recruitment to the Church of Scientology, a science fiction-based cult and pyramid scheme which many former members say has done them enormous financial and emotional damage. It may well be that mephedrone is dangerous as the article says, but one must look elsewhere than to Narconon for reliable information on just how dangerous, in what ways, and under what circumstances. For more information on cults and warning signs of a psychologically abusive or manipulative group, visit the International Cultic Studies Association at www.icsahome.com.

Bad Science or Bad Journalism? (Or Both?)

Yesterday my eye was caught by this headline on the front page of the Weekly Press: "Hiding Pollution Behind Science." The article is about how a group of agricultural scientists are allegedly defending an inappropriate method of estimating safe levels of manure use to put nitrogen in soil. I wrote the following comment:

Tom Horton's approach does a disservice to readers and insults our intelligence. He never explains why he considers Water Stewardship more credible than SERA-17. Nor does he even explain what the harmful consequences of "excess" phosphorus are supposed to be -- and neither does the executive summary nor the introduction to Water Stewardship's report. Instead, he seems to think a couple quotes lifted out of context will suffice to convince us that SERA-17 is biased, without even suggesting what possible motive they would have for preferring farmers at the expense of the environment. Of course this problem, if problem it is, would be moot if we weren't supporting factory farms with our meat-heavy diet. Environmental debates aside, it appears beyond dispute that these industrial facilities create a hellish existence for the animals, which is reason enough to avoid supporting them.

I don't pretend to know who is right in this dispute, and there's unfortunately nothing unusual about a piece of advocacy journalism that insults the critical-minded reader's intelligence. But my attention was siezed by the headline, which is inappropriate even if the author's view is correct. If pollution is being hidden, it's being hidden by bad science, not by "science" as such. Of course that may be the editor's fault rather than Horton's.

I saw a very decadent T-shirt yesterday. It read, "I'll have a cafe mocha vodka marijuana latte, please."



I also got my first "live one" as a Census enumerator -- a resident who was actually at home to give me an interview. Till then I'd only gotten information from neighbors or else had to leave Notices of Visit.

In the course of my rounds today, I saw Senate candidate Joe Sestak giving an outdoor press conference at 15th and Market. He's been courting progressives by contrasting himself to Arlen Specter as the "true Democrat," yet he's supporting the troop escalation in Afghanistan that Specter opposed. So as I walked past I shouted, "US out of Afghanistan NOW!" I then heard someone pointlessly mutter, "Shut up."