Friday, November 29, 2013

The Twelve Days of Marxmas

Digital Tradition Mirror

[GIF Score]
(This score available as ABCSongWrightPostScriptPNG, or PMW, or a MIDI file)
Pennywhistle notation and Dulcimer tab for this song is also available

The Twelve Days of Marxmas
(Roy Berkeley)

On the first day of Marxmas, my comrade gave to me:
A picture of Leon Trotsky.
Two Das Kapitals
Three bayonets
Fourth International
The Five Year Plan
Six splinter groups
seven strikers swinging
Eight Bulganins bulging
Nine men in the Kremlin
Ten days a-shaking
Eleven Lenins leaping
Twelve Hunky fascists

note: Some of the references are arcane and make sense primarily
to students of communist history and the Stalin-Trotsky split. For
example, the Fourth International was the international organization
of Trotsky's followers (the Third International aka the Comintern
was Stalin's). The reference to nine men in the Kremlin refers to the
Politburo. Ten Days that Shook the World. Eleven Lenin's leaping is a
delicious alliteration of which I am (still) quite proud forty years on.
And twelve Hunky fascists refers to the Stalinist Calumny that the
Hungarians who revolted against Soviet tyranny in 1956 were all fascists---
of course, they were no more fascist than the Hungarians who finally
freed themselves from Soviet tyranny 1989-1991. RGB


Note:
Folks process things. The following was found in a book by Carl Sandburg's
daughter.

On the first day of Marxmas, my comrades gave to me

A picture of Leon Trotsky
Two Das Kapitals
Three bayonets
Four bowls borscht
Five year plan
Six workers starving (or Bulganins bulging)
Seven Lenins leaping
Eight Stalins staring
Nine bloody purges
Ten Sputniks spinning
Eleven vats of vodka
Twelve counts of treason

From Sweet Music, Sandburg

Marxgiving

During Marxgiving, American toiling masses traditionally give thanks to the government for what it has distributed to them. All conscientious members of the collective are required to experience (a) deep gratitude to the Party and its leaders; (b) unworthiness in the face of the glorious state; (c) guilt for consuming according to their needs and not giving back enough according to their abilities. The non-compliant will have their belongings redistributed to the more worthy members of the community.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Call the Midwife (TV Series) Episode #1.4 (2012)

Great lines:

Cynthia Miller: You have to be brave to be in love, don't you? I mean, knowing that your heart may get broken, some point along the way...love doesn't seem to adhere to a time and boundaries does it? It just is. ... We have a duty to live every moment the best we can. I mean really live it. Even if it means getting hurt. Otherwise, what’s the point? We mustn’t let fear stop us.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2291319164/

@ 27:25

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

poverty

When only half of the bikini bottom is affordable

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Orbán hite


Hogyan lesz egy liberális politikusból tradicionális szellemi vezető?



„Vannak-e garanciák arra nézve, hogy az egyházak nem avatkoznak be
közvetlenül a politikai életbe?” – tette fel a kérdést 1991-ben az
Országgyűlésben Orbán Viktor, amikor az egyházak költségvetési támogatása ellen
érvelt, ám két ciklussal később már az általa épített „Isten országáról” beszélt
adventi hallgatóságának. A jobboldal (
megjegyzes: sz.v.sz. ma a Parlamentben nincs jobboldal, csak baloldal, azaz etatista/dirigista, az egyent az allam ala rendelo gondolat) első emberének magánéletében beállt
fordulatot nincs jogunk megkérdőjelezni, nagy kérdés ugyanakkor, hogy – az egyik
lehetséges forgatókönyv szerint – a pártjában kialakult feszültség elől esetleg
a KDNP-be menekülő Orbán retorikájában milyen szerepet játszik a politikai
kereszténység.


Fotó: Archív
„Vallástalan közegben nőttem föl, így is jártam iskolába, még az egyetemi
éveim elején is így volt, egészen addig, amíg meg nem ismerkedtem a későbbi
feleségemmel, aki viszont gyakorló katolikus családból származik. Onnantól
kezdve mindenfajta változások álltak be az életünkben. Én személy szerint elég
hosszú utat tettem meg, hogy azt a mondatot ki tudjam mondani, hogy hívő
keresztény ember vagyok” – így vallott hívővé válásáról egy 2005. decemberi
adventi találkozón Orbán Viktor.

Az út valóban hosszú volt. Pünkösti Árpád Szeplőtelen fogantatás című könyvében
idézi Orbán egyik osztálytársát, aki szerint „Viktor csak akkor látta a
templomot, ha az oldalához gurult a labda”. Az újságíró úgy véli, hogy
elképzelhető ugyan, hogy az erős katolikus családi hagyományokkal rendelkező
Lévai Anikónak szerepe volt Orbán vallás felé fordulásában, ugyanakkor személyét
ebben a vonatkozásban hiba lenne túlértékelni. A két fiatal ugyanis 1986-ban
kötött házasságot – csupán polgári szertartás keretében –, ám Orbán 1993-94-ig
kérlelhetetlenül antiklerikális maradt. Ezzel kapcsolatban kötelező jelleggel
szokás idézni a „Csuhások! Térdre, imához!” jellegű kiszólásokat, amelyek a
Fidesz-frakció padsoraiból hangoztak el rendre, amikor KDNP-s politikusok
szólaltak fel a parlamentben, vagy a pápalátogatást cápalátogatásként
aposztrofáló szintén fideszes szóviccet.

Az antiklerikalizmus nemcsak radikális külsőségekben nyilvánult meg, hanem
részét képezte a párt – liberális – ideológiájának is. „Vannak-e garanciák arra
nézve, hogy az egyházak nem avatkoznak be közvetlenül a politikai életbe, nem
gyakorolnak közvetlen befolyást az államra?” – tette fel a kérdést 1991-ben az
Országgyűlésben Orbán, majd az egyházak költségvetési támogatása ellen érvelt,
mondván, hogy ez függőséget teremt állam és egyház viszonyában. A politikai
katolicizmust erőteljesen képviselő MDF-ről is megvolt Orbán véleménye: szerinte
az egyházakban politikai szövetségest kereső párt egy olyan „elkorhadt, régi
világot képvisel”, amely soha többé nem fog Magyarországra visszatérni, az a
gondolatvilág pedig, amellyel „kéretlenül boldogítani akarják a nemzetet”,
idegen a huszadik század végi modern társadalomtól.

1993-ban azonban Orbán vezetésével a Fidesz lassan, de biztosan jobbra mozdult,
ami szükségszerűen együtt járt a valláshoz és a történelmi egyházakhoz való
viszony változásával is. Erre az időre esik, hogy az Orbán házaspár két
gyermekét Iványi Gábor metodista lelkész megkereszteli, sőt házasságukat is
megáldja (lásd keretes írásunkat). Továbbá működik már egy laza, reformátusokból
álló „vallási tagozat” a párton belül, melyet Balog Zoltán és Németh Zsolt neve
fémjelez. Amíg Pünkösti Árpád szerint a váltás pusztán jól kimért politikai
számítás eredménye, és nem kapnak benne szerepet vallási motivációk, addig
Debreczeni József politológus úgy látja, hogy Orbán „pálfordulásában” e kettőt
nem lehet sebészi pontossággal szétválasztani, bár kezdetben talán a taktikai
megfontolás volt hangsúlyosabb. Szerinte már a Csurka radikalizmusával szemben
megfogalmazott Demokratikus Charta kapcsán – amelyben SZDSZ-es politikusok
együttműködtek a szocialistákkal – „derengeni” kezdett a Fidesz elnöke számára,
hogy a baloldalt a jövőben ez a két párt fogja meghatározni. A „jobbra át”
azonban csak az 1994-es választási vereség után vált egyértelművé. Ebben Orbán
rövid idő alatt ért el nagy sikereket. Jó példa erre az az epizód, amelyet
Debreczeni említ Orbán Viktorról szóló könyvében. 1995-ben a Fidesz, az MDF és a
KDNP által köztársasági elnöknek jelölt Mádl Ferenc bemutatásán az Erkel
Színházban az első sorban ülő pártelnökök mellé megérkezik Paskai László
bíboros, esztergomi érsek, Magyarország főprímása. Az egyházi főméltóság
„mosolyogva nyújtja a jobbját, csakhogy nem a közvetlenül mellette ülő Giczy
Györgynek, hanem előtte átnyúlva előbb Orbán Viktornak. Giczy visszakapja a maga
mozduló kezét, az arca egyre zöldebb, míg a prímás hosszan parolázik a Fidesz
elnökével”. Amit ekkor még csak sejteni lehetett, az az 1998-as választások
során nyilvánvalóvá válik: az úgynevezett történelmi egyházak nem az időközben
szétszakadt KDNP-t, hanem a Fideszt támogatták.


Fotó: Somorjai László
Orbán, a jó pásztor
Hatalomra jutva, Orbán – Gábor György vallástörténész szavaival élve –
személyes krédóját politikai krédóvá emeli. Az országot „keresztény
miniszterelnökként”, kvázi jó pásztorként irányítja. E bibliai kép gyakorta
felbukkan a jobboldalon vele kapcsolatban. A 2002-es kampánykörútja során
megesik, hogy így „konferálják fel”, de a már idézett 2005-ös adventi
bizonyságtételében maga is utal „elhívására”. „Azóta (a konfirmáció óta – a
szerk.) annak a mondatnak a jegyében próbálok élni, meg végzem a munkámat, amit
úgy hívnak, hogy az Isten dicsőségére és az emberek javára élni. (…) Nekem az
országot kell építenem, kis o-val, az országot – ami a magyar nemzet e világi
országa –, és nagy O-val is, az országot, Isten országát, és ez a magasabb rendű
célja és értelme annak, amit teszek. Mindenfajta politikai kalkuláción túli,
afölött álló, magasabb rendű értelem. És egyre inkább érzem, hogy erőt ad, hogy
ennek a szolgálatába állhattam, és ennek a szolgálatának szentelhettem magamat.
(…) Lassan kezdem megérteni, bár református vagyok, hogy az ember akkor a
legerősebb, amikor térden áll.” A Balás Béla kaposvári püspök és Balog Zoltán
református lelkész által vezetett beszélgetés végén a püspök egy somogyi
faragású pásztorbotot ajándékoz Orbánnak, megjegyezve, hogy úgy adja mint
munkaeszközt.

Visszatérve az 1998–2002 közötti időszakhoz, a miniszterelnök anyagi és
szimbolikus gesztusokkal erősíti a hagyományos egyházakhoz fűződő viszonyát.
Ezek sora meglehetősen hosszú: a szent ereklyeként tisztelt korona a
Parlamentben kap új otthont, majd Esztergomba és vissza úsztatják a Dunán;
gőzerővel beindul a templomok felújítása állami segítséggel, a kistelepülések
papjainak, lelkészeinek fizetését pedig központilag egészítik ki; kísérlet
történik a válásszabadságról szóló törvény módosítására, illetve az egyházak
jogszabályi „osztályozására”. Eközben Orbán rendszeres résztvevője –
miniszterelnökként – vallási szertartásoknak, körmeneteknek. A millennium évében
az Új ember című katolikus folyóiratnak így nyilatkozik: „Nincs kétségem afelől,
hogy Magyarország és a kereszténység, a magyarok és a történelmi egyházak
egymástól nem választhatók el.”

Debreczeni szerint Orbán miniszterelnökként még „hideg fejjel”, tudatosan
használta politikájában a vallási elemeket, később azonban – a 2002-es vereség
után – egyfajta „fanatikus” hit felé mozdult el: egyre erőteljesebben jelentek
meg beszédeiben a vallási motívumok. A vereséget például egyfajta próbatételnek
fogta fel, amelynek magasabb rendű értelme van. „Vereséget szenvedtünk, de nem
győztek le minket”; „a sok pénz legyőzte az igazságot”; „a nemzet nem lehet
ellenzékben” – igyekezett Orbán értelmezni a sokkoló tényt.

„Az utóbbi időben még nyilvánvalóbb – bizonyosan a 2006-os vereség is
közrejátszott ebben –, hogy magát a politikát helyezi vallási fundamentalista
alapra. Megjelenik a Jó és Gonosz harca, amelyben kizárólagos erkölcsi alapot
vindikál saját maga és a jobboldal számára. Ez a demokratikus pártversenytől
eléggé messze áll, joggal lehet antidemokratikus felfogásnak nevezni” – mutat rá
Debreczeni.

„Orbán, úgy tűnik, tényleg megtért, de nem világos pontosan, hogy kihez és hova”
– mondja a már idézett Gábor György, aki úgy gondolja, hogy mára a Fidesz
elnökének valláshoz való viszonyában inkább a személyes meggyőződés dominál: a
többszörösen megrendült politikus a hitben vél rátalálni a lelki egyensúlyára. A
vallástörténész ugyanakkor hozzáteszi: szellemi vezetői mintha egyfajta
szinkretista, többkomponensű hit felé orientálnák Orbánt. Mindenképpen érdekes
momentum a hivatalosan református vallású honatya elmozdulása a katolicizmus
irányába, ami a mai napig éles konfliktust generál Orbán protestáns mentora,
Balog Zoltán és Semjén Zsolt KDNP-elnök között. Hogy a katolikus egyház mégis
elsősorban politikusként érdekli a Fidesz vezetőjét, az Balognak a vallásügyi
bizottság élére helyezéséből is kiviláglik.

„Református közegben szenteket emleget, szó nélkül hagyja, hogy a választások
előtti Fidesz-kongresszuson a felszólalók egyfajta pogány istenkáromlást adnak
elő, Jézushoz és Barrabáshoz hasonlítva Orbánt, illetve Gyurcsányt. Ezzel a
politikai fundamentalizmussal Orbán a parlamenti demokráciáktól idegen módon
újfajta legitimációt igyekszik biztosítani saját magának és az általa vezetett
jobboldalnak” – magyarázza Gábor György. Az Istentől küldött vezető ugyanis nem
a néptől, hanem a természetfeletti világból nyeri a „felkenetést”, veresége
pedig csakis időszakos lehet, hiszen a Jó és Gonosz ősi harcában az ellenség nem
győzhet.

„A probléma csak az, hogy Európában már régen felismerték, hogy ez a felfogás
szükségszerűen kirekesztéshez vezet” – mondja rá Gábor György.
Rossz tanácsadók
Az Orbán házaspár első két gyermekét – Ráhelt és Gáspárt – Iványi Gábor
metodista lelkész keresztelte meg 1993-ban és 1994-ben, aki egyben a szülők
házasságát is megáldotta. A lelkész lapunknak elmondta, hogy Orbánék a köztük
lévő jó kapcsolat alapján kérték meg a szertartás elvégzésére. A Fidesz
elnökének vallási megnyilvánulásai kapcsán Iványi úgy fogalmazott: „Helyeslem,
ha mindenki nyíltan képviseli hitbeli meggyőződését, de azt is, ha szigorú
önmagával és másokkal szemben annak megítélésében, hogy mi a magán- és mi a
közügy. Úgy látom, most ebben a kérdésben rossz tanácsadók állnak a volt
miniszterelnök mögött. Ha egy állami vezető (ilyen minőségében) teológiai
kérdésekről nyilatkozik, akkor tekintettel kell lennie a vallásilag sokszínű
nemzet minden tagjára.”
Országépítő egyházak
Balog Zoltán református lelkész, Orbán Viktor szellemi mentora nem kívánt a
politikus hitbeli meggyőződéséről nyilatkozni, mondván, hogy ez nem lenne
etikus. Ugyanakkor kifejtette lapunknak: nem az a kérdés, hogy egy
miniszterelnöknek joga van-e keresztényként vezetni az országot, hanem az, hogy
ebben az esetben tettei milyen viszonyban vannak a keresztény elvekkel.

„Az egyházi közösségek támogatása sem feltétlenül ideológiai hovatartozás
kérdése, hiszen azt minden józan országvezető beláthatja, hogy az olyan
közösségeket – ezek lehetnek civil szervezetek is –, amelyek közösségteremtő
erővel bírnak, és az emberek boldogulásán munkálkodnak, érdemes támogatni. Orbán
Viktor soha nem diszkriminált más felekezetű vagy hitű embereket – jelentette ki
Balog.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Algerian author: 'In all honesty, the Arabs are backward, and are not fit for civilization at all'

In this video, Algerian author Anwar Malek talks about Arab society in a way that would never be allowed on the English-language channel (in fact, I am surprised it was allowed on the Arabic-language channel). Algerian author Anwar Malek lets off some steam to discuss the current plights facing the Arab World today. He deems that the Arabs today have lost their worth, their humanity, their culture, and are afflicted with false bravado and backwardness.

Let's go to the video. A transcript will follow.





And here's the transcript.
Following are excerpts from an interview with Algerian author Anwar Malek, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on March 3, 2009:

Interviewer: 73% of our viewers believe that the Arabs constitute a great power, and have ability to be influential, and so on.

[...]

Anwar Malek: This figure indicates that the Arabs are afflicted with fantasies and obsolete bravado.

Interviewer: False bravado.

Anwar Malek: False, empty bravado, which does no good to anybody. The Arabs invented, or discovered, the zero – but what did they do with it? Some of them sat on it, some put it on their heads, while others wore it around their waists, and began shaking their hips, their bellies, and their breasts, in order to sell to the world the idea that modern Arabs are doing something. Today, the Arabs constitute nothing but thousands of zeros to the left... The Arabs have lost their worth, their humanity, their culture, and everything. There is nothing to suggest that the Arabs can be relied upon to produce anything.

This false bravado is deeply rooted in the Arabs to an unimaginable degree. It is so deeply rooted that the Arabs believe they can go to the moon. If you asked your viewers whether the Arabs would be able to reach the moon by 2015, they would say: "Yes, the Arabs will get to the moon." By Allah, the Arabs will not go more than a few hundred kilometers from their doorsteps. These are empty words.

In all honesty, the Arabs are backward, and are not fit for civilization at all. I am not referring to history. I am talking about the Arabs of today. I'm not talking about the Arabs of the past, in the days of the Islamic conquests. I am talking about the Arabs of today. They have lost their Arab identity, and have begun to export shawarma, falafel, and lupin beans to Europe, and they purport to be bringing something Arab to Europe.

Interviewer: Civilization.

Anwar Malek: They call it civilization.

[...]

The Arab rulers are a reflection of the people. The Arab rulers did not come down from Mars or from the sun. They emerged from among the people, and share the same beliefs. If you placed any Arab citizen in power... I challenge any Arab citizen, who may become a ruler, to do anything beyond what the current Arab leaders are doing. There is no difference between the Arab rulers and the Arab peoples. All those who are called "Arabs" are one and the same.

[...]

Interviewer: Look what small resistance movements have achieved, by means of very primitive weapons, in confronting aggressors and enemies. Can you deny this? This completely refutes what you say.

Anwar Malek: What resistance are you talking about? If you are talking about the resistance of Hizbullah – Hizbullah has destroyed Lebanon, in the framework of a Persian conspiracy. I say this point blank. As for the resistance in Palestine – they are defending themselves. They are a group of people defending themselves from attacks from all directions. What did they achieve? Did they defeat or destroy Israel? I consider it a miracle when someone manages to even defend himself. The reality of the Arabs is one of defeat, hitting rock bottom... We are defeated, politically and militarily... and economically, socially, and even psychologically. We have a discourse of conspiracy, and we blame everything on others.

[...]

Interviewer: Take Egypt, for example. What does Egypt – that superpower – have to offer? I ask you, what does Egypt have to offer?

Anwar Malek: Nothing. It is incapable of doing anything. It has nothing but lupin beans – and I say this in complete irony. It is incapable of doing anything. It lives off American aid. Without it, they would starve.

[...]

Egypt is incapable of waging war, strategically and militarily. It is incapable of doing anything.

Interviewer: Didn't Egypt win several wars?

Anwar Malek: No. The 1973 war was not a victory. It was another defeat.

Interviewer: It didn't win the war?

Anwar Malek: No. It was followed by the Camp David accords a few years later. It did not win the war. No Arab country has won a war in modern times. There has been no victory worthy of mention. All we have are defeats, which we package as victories.

[...]

Look at how the Arabs live in the West. By Allah, they are a bad example. If you hear about thieves – they are always Arabs. Whenever a young man harasses a girl on the streets of London or Paris, he turns out to be an Arab. All the negative moral values are to be found in the Arab individual.

Why I still love a newspaper...


 
 
          
 
 
  
 













































































Why I still love a newspaper...
 

Saturday, November 2, 2013

How to Be Outraged on the Internet

BY  ON AUG 7, 2013 IN ARTICLESDESPAIR

When Al Gore singlehandedly invented the Internet in 1993, he envisioned a new, shining city upon a hill, where global citizens could debate the issues most important to them. It was a great idea: let’s take the calm, reasoned discussions that occur at every family Thanksgiving, in every bar at 2 a.m., and every basic-cable news channel debate show, and give everybody a chance to join in. What could possibly go wrong?
As it turns out: everything. Literally everything. It turns out that when people are given a chance to argue anonymously, it takes about 15 seconds for the debate to descend into a virtual screaming match, leaving everyone involved both angrier and stupider. Thanks, Al Gore! You really did us a solid!
It’s a sad state of affairs, to be sure. And maybe, with a little work and a lot of restraint, we could all come together and change the way online debates work. But that takes effort, so screw it. Let’s all just accept the new normal and join in the worldwide brawl that Internet-based discussion has become. Before you do, though, there’s an important skill you’re going to have to learn: how to be outraged. Just practice the steps below, and in no time, you’ll find yourself transformed from a calm, reasonable human being into a flaming ball of hatred, rage, and resentment! You’ll thank us later. Probably by tweeting “DIE IN A FIRE” at us. Don’t worry, though. We’ll know what you mean.
1. Always remember: it’s about you. This is the first rule of Internet outrage, and you should never forget it. Every time somebody expresses an opinion with which you disagree, they are doing it to anger you personally. It doesn’t matter whether the person actually knows you; the only reason he wrote what he or she did is to piss you off, and you would be a fool not to take it as a deeply personal insult. A political writer says nice things about the candidate you plan to vote against? That’s the equivalent of him setting fire to your car and insulting your mother’s chastity. React accordingly.

2. You are the only person who realizes how enraging this situation is. There might be seven billion people in this crazy world of ours, but always keep in mind that you’re special, and if you don’t express your fury over a particular situation, nobody else will. It can get lonely, being the lone vox clamantis in deserto, but that just means you’re going to have to rant more loudly and obnoxiously than everybody else. Social media is particularly good for expressing your feelings of isolated rage. If you notice your friends discussing a topic you find irrelevant, you’ll want to reply with a passive-aggressive post of your own, highlighting your righteous anger in the face of others’ apathy. Learn to write sentences like “I can’t believe everyone’s talking about the royal baby when [thing that makes you mad] is going on.” Not only will you let people know you’re smarter and more engaged than them, you’ll also give yourself the praise you so richly deserve!

3. Everything is your business. As hard as it is to believe, before the Internet, people tended to stay away from conversations they weren’t involved in. If you heard two people discussing politics, or more personal topics, in a coffee shop, etiquette demanded that you not join in and tell them they were both sadly misinformed. (Truly, it was the Dark Ages.)  Not anymore! Do you disapprove of the way your Facebook friend is raising his or her child? Are you unhappy with the pet name your buddy has given his or her significant other? Jump right in! Private conversations are so 1989, and there is no topic of discussion that wouldn’t benefit from your strongly-held opinion.

4. Learn the vocabulary of outrage. Particularly the ABC’s of angry commenting: Always BeCapitalizing. An enraged rant just isn’t the same if it isn’t rendered, at least partially, in all caps. You’ll also want to keep some of these phrases in your back pocket:
  • “NO. JUST NO.” (also acceptable: “WOW. JUST WOW.”)
  • “THIS IS NOT OKAY.” (Note: It’s actually spelled “OK,” of course; “okay” is a semi-literate barbarism. But this is the Internet, college boy, not your master’s thesis, so get it right.)
  • “WTF.”
  • “I CAN’T EVEN.”
  • “FAIL.”
Whatever you do, don’t attempt to engage your rival’s actual arguments — keep it personal, and content-free. Remember, you’re not trying to change minds, you’re trying to shore up your own enraged-nerd credibility. (But do save “KILL YOURSELF” or “DIE IN A FIRE” for more serious matters, like if somebody doesn’t enjoy a particular video game quite as much as you do. You don’t just want to throw these around willy-nilly.)

5. Constantly threaten to quit social media. You might be a master of outrage, but you’re still a delicate little flower, and it’s vital you let everyone know that. If not enough people sympathize with your latest rage fit, regretfully inform them that you’ll probably be deleting your social media accounts, because nobody seems to care about the things you care about — they’re just using Facebook and Twitter to interact with friends and family, and maybe share things that make them happy. Wait for the comments begging you to stay to roll in!

6. Quit social media. In a huff. The huff is vital. Do not forget the huff.

7. Rejoin social media. Preferably around two days later. Explain your decision to rejoin by posting to something that makes you really mad, and letting your friends know that you just couldn’t stay silent about it. Did the political party you oppose issue a press release saying the exact same things they’ve been saying for 50 years? There’s your post! Sure, you deserve a rest, but you have a great responsibility to your friends: letting them know what they should be furious about. What would they do without you? Besides, you know, live their lives and do the things they enjoy?

8. Pile on. The person with whom you disagree might be getting thousands of hateful tweets and Facebook replies, helpfully suggesting that he should perform obscene acts to himself and/or die in a painful manner. But they’ll never get the point unless you weigh in. Remember: it’s only bullying when it’s happening to you. When you’re doing it, it is brave social activism, and you should be awarded some kind of medal.

9. Don’t keep your outrage hidden. A common mistake that angry people make on Twitter is yelling at someone without letting everyone who follows them witness the unhinged rant. Did your bus arrive five minutes late? Did the clerk at the fast-food joint neglect to give you enough napkins? Was the attendant on your flight momentarily distracted when you were trying to get his attention? Don’t make the mistake of tweeting only at the business’s account — put a period first so everyone can see it. There’s nothing your followers want to read more than your abusive whining to whatever intern runs a company’s social media account! They’ll all be breathless, awaiting your angry updates. Stick it to the man! It won’t make you look like a jerk at all!

10. Make sure your tone is hectoring, intolerant, and enraged. You’ve heard the old saying:you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. That’s all well and good, but remember, you’re not trying to catch flies. You’re trying to simultaneously provoke and publicly shame them. Why bother converting other people to your point of view when you can just insult them and compare them to Hitler? It’s not important that the problems of the world get solved. It’s not important to foster a discussion that draws in people from all walks of life. And it’s certainly not important to behave with even a modicum of dignity.
It’s just important to win. And on the Internet, rage is its own victory. We’re not going to solve the world’s problems, but we can at least make other people feel horrible for disagreeing with us. And if you disagree, well, I’ve got a fire, and I’d be happy to tell you what you should do in it.

Friday, November 1, 2013

From Kids' Books To Erotica, Tomi Ungerer's 'Far Out' Life



DAVID BIANCULLI, HOST:
This is FRESH AIR. I'm David Bianculli, in for Terry Gross.
TERRY GROSS, HOST:
Our next guest, children's book author and illustrator Tomi Ungerer is a subject of a documentary that's just been released on DVD. It's called "Far Out Isn't Far Enough" and examines his work, his life and his often controversial ideas.
BIANCULLI: Ungerer's children's books aren't as famous in America today as those of his late friend Maurice Sendak, but Sendak has said that his own most famous book, "Where the Wild Things Are," was partly Ungerer: his energy, his spirit.
The documentary, "Far Out Isn't Far Enough, features interviews with Ungerer, as well as with Sendak, cartoonist friend Jules Feiffer, and several children's book experts. Sendak says in the film that he's proud that he and Ungerer helped change the scene in America so that children were dealt with like the intelligent little animals we know they are.
Sendak and Ungerer had the same editor, Ursula Nordstrom, who let them break some of the rules of children's books. Ungerer didn't mind scaring kids a little. He was exposed to terrifying scenes growing up under Nazi occupation on the French-German border. World War II also figured into another part of his career, designing anti-war posters during the war in Vietnam. In the early '70s, his career in America was virtually ended because he'd started publishing his erotic S&M drawings.
His children's books were banned from libraries and taken out of print. So he left for Nova Scotia and a few years later moved to Ireland, where he lives today. Terry Gross spoke with him earlier this year.
GROSS: Tomi Ungerer, welcome to FRESH AIR. And congratulations on the new movie about you. So let's start with your first children's book, which you published in 1957, "The Mellops Go Flying." What were some of the worst things that happened to this family of pigs?
TOMI UNGERER: Well, originally when I came and was - and met Ursula Nordstrom, which became my editor for all my first books in Harper's, I had already a book about a family of pigs. But it was quite cruel because her dealings with the butcher was butchering pigs and all that, but she - it's Ursula Nordstrom who liked the characters of the father, mother and the four children.
And she says just do me another story with the same characters. So I just sat down and did my book.
GROSS: Were you surprised that many Americans thought that children's books shouldn't have anything that might scare children or upset them?
UNGERER: Well, I mean, that was, you know, that was my luck and Maurice Sendak's luck to have met Ursula Nordstrom. And she was absolutely reckless. She just didn't care about what people would say. And I must say that most of my children's books have fear elements, and - but I must say too, to balance this fact, that the children in my books are never scared.
GROSS: I think, you know, as adults we try to protect children from being exposed to frightening things that they don't have to be exposed to. But for you being a child growing up in Alsace during World War II, no one could protect you from seeing the war. It was all around you. And you went to school from about the ages eight to 13, correct me if I'm wrong about that under...
UNGERER: Exactly. There we go. Yeah.
GROSS: ...under the Nazis because the Nazis invaded where you lived and took over. So it must have been awfully hard not to be scared.
UNGERER: Well, I don't know. I mean, I must say we were not really scared, but there was always the anxiety of being arrested by the Gestapo, which is something much deeper, in a way. You know, because it sticks to you all the time. Are we going to make another day? Are we going to be arrested? Is so-and-so, are we going to die? Well, dying is not so much, I mean, but still, it's all the impending menace, you know, all the time, all the time, and that's anxiety. I find anxiety worse than fear.
GROSS: You were encouraged to draw during World War II when the Nazis took over Alsace, where you lived.
UNGERER: Oh yeah.
GROSS: And you were told that the Fuhrer needed artists. Do you think that teachers were told to basically try to create a new generation of propaganda artists for Hitler?
UNGERER: Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm totally - I've been totally brainwashed by the Nazis. And when you look at my children drawings, you'll find them in two categories: the ones I did at one, which were - and as I always said, you know, in my autobiography, I say, you know, I was a German at school, I was French at home and with my friends in the streets we were Alsatians.
And I must say that my drawings were the French ones I did at home, but then at school I had to draw propaganda pictures, you know. But I must say already in those days I always slipped some really funny element. I remember I had to do a portrait of the Fuhrer, you know, giving a speech, and I put a bock - a stein of beer on this thing, but the Fuhrer didn't drink.
But still, you know, nobody ever objected. That's what - you know, the thing is no matter what tyranny, you always can get away maybe not with murder but with a few other things. And your mind, you know, your mind is always free. Nobody can take away your mind.
We were brought up to become soldiers, you know, like - as I said, they would say don't think. The Fuhrer thinks for you. But then it was reassuring, too, because I was not a good pupil. And then the teachers would say to me, as you just, you mentioned it already, and he says don't worry, the Fuhrer needs artists and all that.
I mean, so the whole thing was geared to win over, to win over the children away from their parents. We were even offered a sum of money if we would - and we could decide, not the parents, if we would want to leave the family, leave your parents and go in a special Nazi boarding school.
I mean, I could have come home and say, Mom, I'm going to the Nazi boarding school, and my mother would have had no way to say - you know, I mean, of course, we didn't do a thing like that. But just to give you - they used every, every trick in the book. Every trick in the book, to win over the young people.
GROSS: Since your father died when you were young, around three and a half, when you started doing children's books, did you want to present death in those books? Because, you know, a lot of children lose people. They lose grandparents; some of them lose a parent like you did. And in some countries, particularly countries at war, they lose a lot of people.
So have you addressed death in your children's books? I know you certainly did a bit in your autobiography of a teddy bear.
UNGERER: No, not really. I have a book still, which hasn't been published yet, which is about death. It - but, oh, that's a good - maybe I should finish it. The thing is, you know, sometimes you have a book and it's nearly finished and you haven't got an ending. And the ending in my book is kind of, you know, it would be too much. But it is a story of somebody who dies and he gets so forlorn and so bored in his grave that one night he says, oh, I'm fed up with it, I'm going home. And then you have the skeleton going home, you see? And his wife is there, and he snuggles into her bed, and he says darling, it's me.
(LAUGHTER)
UNGERER: And then, and then of course, he - first of all, his wife is telling him to take a shower, because you know, still all the clay, you know. And actually as a profession he was a funeral director, you see. And he takes up his business again, and him being a skeleton is excellent advertising.
And can you imagine the children waking up the next morning and finding their skeleton father having breakfast with them? The only problem is whenever he swallowed coffee, it went right through, because he doesn't have an esophagus or doesn't have a stomach to digest it. And then he says, oh, I'm driving the children to school; I'm driving the children to school.
(LAUGHTER)
UNGERER: But my ending was pretty bad, because in my book, my ending - that's why - that's too much, you see. But I can tell you there's a terrorist, you know, hijacking the whole class where the two children are, but he cannot be hit by a bullet because they go right through the bone structure. And he's able to save the situation.
But that's going too far, and I'm perfectly aware of that. So I have to think of another way of doing it. But to come back to your question, no, I haven't used death that much, no.
GROSS: Wow, that's a really great story, but it seems to me part of what that story is about is how, you know - eliminating the part where the skeleton saves the day and vanquishes the terrorist - eliminating that part for a moment, it's kind of a funny story about how the dead actually really do belong in the grave. Much as you want them to come back again, they can't, and if they did, they'd be kind of weird.
UNGERER: Well, I'm telling you one thing, if I'm getting restless I'm not going to stay there. I may be there on my own...
(LAUGHTER)
GROSS: Good luck.
UNGERER: I may be there on my own funeral, because I guess I have to. But otherwise I'm, I think I will be restless forever.
GROSS: So let's skip ahead a little bit. We were talking about how you grew up in Alsace on the French-German border, a contested territory that went back and forth between the French and Germans. When you were born, it was French. During World War II, the Germans invaded and took it over for several years. And that was your childhood.
Then you started reading American magazines, fell in love with the America that they presented and you decided to move to New York. You were kind of broke. I think you had $60 in your pocket. So you come to America. You start doing ads and then you start doing children's books. Your children's books are successful. But then you also start doing political posters.
UNGERER: Oh, yeah.
GROSS: And posters for like - I remember this ad campaign for the Village Voice: Expect the Unexpected. And you did, like, surreal illustrations to accompany that. And then you did anti-war posters. One of them is an illustration of President Johnson bending over and feeding rat poison to a dove, a dove being the symbol of peace. And the caption reads: Peace Talks.
So did people kind of connect the dots between the guy who was doing these anti-war posters and these surreal political posters with the same guy who was doing the children's books?
UNGERER: I don't know in the beginning, you know, because people in the children's book world are specialized in children's books. But I think most people realized that I had my hands in just so, so many elements. And then came my erotic books too, later on. My erotic satire and all that.
GROSS: Yes. I was going to ask you about that. So you mentioned erotica. So you started doing erotica illustrations and books, including a lot of bondage poses. And then the trouble started. So first of all, how did you - by trouble I mean, when people realized that the guy doing these great kids' books was also doing these, you know, bondage erotica illustrations.
It wasn't a good thing for your kids' books. Your books were pulled from libraries. I mean you were - you ended up leaving the country.
UNGERER: I was banned. They were all my books, including even the children books, were banned from American libraries. And that was for me the end, and that's when I left because, you know, and I came back to Europe.
GROSS: Why did you want to head in that direction? I mean had you always secretly drawn stuff like this...
UNGERER: Because I...
GROSS: ... or did you always want to?
UNGERER: No, because I think it's really, it's really - it's a matter of, in a way, of freedom. I think people are allowed to do anything they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, and as long as it's in mutual consent and all that. I lived in Hamburg in a bordello and wrote a book about that of what was happening there and all the dominas and all, the wonderful women that do the kind of works that no psychiatrist would do.
And I'm always fascinated by finding the human element behind everything.
BIANCULLI: Children's book author and illustrator Tomi Ungerer speaking to Terry Gross earlier this year. More after a break. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
BIANCULLI: This is FRESH AIR. Our guest is Tomi Ungerer who is famous for his award-winning children's book. The recent documentary about his work and life called "Far Out Isn't Far Enough" has just come out on DVD. It also covers his life growing up as a child on the French-German border when it was taken over by the Nazis, his friendship with Maurice Sendak, and his drawings of erotica. That's where we'll pick up the next part of his conversation with Terry.
GROSS: So, I'm thinking in my mind; I'm comparing the erotic, you know, posters that you did of, like, you know, women in leather being whipped and so on, you know, very bondage.
UNGERER: Well...
GROSS: Wait. Wait. I'm comparing that with what happened to Maurice Sendak. When he did his book "In the Night Kitchen," which is a, you know, just a wonderful...
UNGERER: Oh, yeah.
GROSS: ...children's book, that book was banned from some libraries in America because in one scene there is a little baby with a little baby penis, and because that baby is naked...
UNGERER: Oh, my god.
GROSS: ...you know, the book was pulled. So he suffered for that. So I'm just thinking...
UNGERER: Well, I...
GROSS: ...like in an environment where that isn't acceptable, to think of what you were doing, I can only imagine.
UNGERER: Well, I would say that is more kind of an American puritan, you know, way of banning. See, we don't, I don't have - I never had any problems like this in France or Germany or anywhere else. I always broke every possible taboo, and so did Maurice. Not that we did it on purpose. Well, I'm an argent provocateur by profession. All right.
But I don't automatically try to scandalize; it's just in me. And I just think that, you know, children love practical jokes. Children are not idiots. They know, as I said in my movie, children know where children are coming from, where babies are coming from. What they don't know is where adults are coming from. We don't respect children's minds enough, and they can well handle, you know, all my little side jokes in my books.
GROSS: I have a question about Maurice for you. I know you were good friends. And late in his life, he came out and told people that he was gay. It was something he couldn't possibly have done early in his career because I don't think America would have tolerated somebody who was gay writing children's books. There was so much homophobia. I mean there still is, but it was much worse then.
UNGERER: Oh, god. I know. Yeah. Yeah. Absolument.
GROSS: Did you know?
UNGERER: I know. I know. I remember.
GROSS: Did you know that he was gay and did you have to keep that secret?
UNGERER: Well, I knew it right away. Oh yeah.
GROSS: Mm-hmm.
UNGERER: Well, but, you see, we spent a lot of time together. So, I mean, we were very close. We were really in this children books thing. Well, there were others who - kind of like Shel Silverstein. I brought Shel Silverstein to Ursula Nordstom.
GROSS: Really?
UNGERER: I mean, we were really kind of a small group of people determined to change things, you know, all those kind of little sweetie, little nimble-pimby, mushy-fushy little children's books. No. No. No. I mean, but as I said, Maurice wouldn't have any of this problem, or me, in Europe because it's just a different way of looking at things. Now England would be like America, I would say. It's Anglo-Saxon, in a way. Anglo-Saxon, I presume.
GROSS: So you left America because your erotica and your political artwork basically were making you persona non grata.
UNGERER: Oui. Exactly.
GROSS: So you move to Nova Scotia for a few years, and then you moved to Ireland, which is where you live now. When did you leave the United States?
UNGERER: In '71.
GROSS: Mm-hmm.
UNGERER: In '71.
GROSS: So, now that so many years have elapsed since then, and you've gone back to children's books and those books have been published - some of those books have been published here. Some of your books have been republished here in new editions. Do you meet people who grew up with your children's books and then later found out about your erotica? And if so, what's their reaction?
UNGERER: Well, look here, I mean, in Europe I have absolutely no problem. I did an erotic book which is based on the "Kama Sutra." But instead of human beings, the positions are taken up by frogs, you know?
(LAUGHTER)
UNGERER: And people come to me and say, you know, I was brought up with you. It's called the "Kama Sutra of Frogs." And as I say, you know, I was 13 years old and I saved money to buy your "Kama Sutra." I had already been brought up with your books. It's no problem. You know, I've been ambassador at the European Council for Childhood and Education and my eroticism has never bothered anyone.
GROSS: Well, I want to thank you so much for talking with us. And I wish you well. Be well.
UNGERER: Well, and you too. I have a feeling you deserve it.
GROSS: Well, that's so nice of you to say.
UNGERER: You are very nice.
(LAUGHTER)
UNGERER: No. No. It was very nice.
BIANCULLI: Children's book author and illustrator Tomi Ungerer speaking to Terry Gross earlier this year. A documentary about his life and work called "Far Out Isn't Far Enough" has just been released on DVD. And just today his latest book, "Fog Island," was named one of the 10 best illustrated children's book of the year by the New York Times. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.