Beatrice Rumors Abound

Yes, it may be cliche to claim "Beatrice" as your favorite night spot, but it is (well now, was) one of mine. Recent rumors suggest that the West Village's most debauched bacchanalia might resurface.

TALIBAN OVERHAUL THEIR IMAGE IN BID TO WIN ALLIES

Oh, that makes perfect sense. The Taliban is working on softening their image to win over local Afghans. Why didn't they think of this before? Taliban is (going to be) the new cashmere.

The NY Times Article

Before:

After:

. . . . . I have an idea, Taliban. To soften your image, how about not killing, pillaging, raping, and generally failing at life. Or maybe just DISBAN YOUR INNANE FANATICAL GROUP.

Tradition Overturned: The Rise of Global Consciousness

In response to "In Germany, a Tradition Falls, and Women Rise."

It is time for traditional family values to be torn down and new traditions established. It is time to usher in a new era of global consciousness. No longer can people disregard the real problems that face this world (environmental, ethical, poverty, etc...) in the name of "tradition." As John Travolta once so eloquently stated, it is time to "notify the mayor motherfucker!."

I was recently engaged in a heated debate with regards to my decision to be a pescetarian in which my fellow debater made the outlandish claim that eating of meat is "tradition," and thus validating our right to eat animals. This person went on to claim that all traditions are good -- i will not attack that claim here, as I assume it is quite obvious how abhorrently wrong and close-minded that statement is -- but it is the perpetual insistence and continued reaffirmation of established traditions that are at times so troubling. One of these traditions is the production of family lineage (i.e. MAKING BABIES). Now I do not want to suggest that having children is wrong, but having too many (more than 2 I believe) displays a complete disregard for global consciousness (the concept that your actions will effect not only yourself and your immediate surroundings, but the world at large).

Logic tells us that if birthrates continue to rise faster than the rate of global deaths, we will create a greater need for the consumption of food and energy -- not only the consumption of energy, but the production of harmful waste (CO2) as well. With our climate already in peril (just look at the number, and more importantly the force, of recent natural disasters) we do not need to produce more humans at such a drastic rate. The current global population is roughly 6.5 billion and statistics suggest that number will only rise with our current trends.

There are two ways to tackle this problem and one of them feeds into the greatest fear in the history of mankind, which also happens to be the root of the creation of one of the greatest calamities of all time, Religion. That fear is death. This next statement will sound insensitive, but it is true. We need more people to die. We need to curb our rate of human growth.

Now, our fear of death has fueled the creation of many institutions (I'm thinking of religion here...yes, don't worry, Religion will be a prevalent topic on this blog in later columns), but it is time for our fear of death to fuel the awareness and the promotion of the aforementioned abstract idea -- "global consciousness." Another way to tackle this problem of human population growth is to have less kids. I am not suggesting that we go the way of China and REQUIRE by law how many kids a family can have, because I believe that when most humans are told to do something without first engraining it in social behavior it only leads to social unrest and the temptation to do the exact opposite of what they are told. But just as it has become tradition for many people (my mother is one of six children from a midwestern American family) to have more than 2 children (Octamom go jump off a cliff please you insensitive twat) it is time for it to become tradition for families to have 2 children or less. The bottom line is that it is extremely selfish to put others (the world) at risk just because you may want to have that extra child -- just because you think that extra kid will save your marriage -- just because you want to have a son to carry on that ever so small hope that they may one day play in the NBA (oops, that was a personal anxiety there) -- just because your mother and father had five children and you think for some asinine reason that a large family will pay homage to them. (Jesus I hate the phrase "just because"). Possible Solution: As Benhold's statistics suggest in her article, the more that women work, the less kids they have (Yea Sweden!). Any type of proposal for how to do this is too lengthy for this column.

However, I am sick and tired of certain topics labeled as insensitive for discussion in the Public realm. Example number one: WHY is it that if you question one's faith it is as if you have violated someone's existence! Religion needs to be thrust into the realm of public debate (thank you Richard Dawkins). There is overwhelming evidence that displays the fragility of any argument that attempts to defend the use of religion. But I digress...enough religious debate here. If Global Warming continues to dominate public discussion, then realistic answers to the rate of global population growth must become more prevalent as well. The reality is that global population growth and global warming go hand in hand. It is humans that have destroyed the environment. Yes, this might sound elementary, but maybe if we create less, we will harm less...

Germany has given us hope that traditions can be overturned. More importantly, as Germany thwarts tradition, their birthrates have fallen as well. As is evident by the third graph in "The Female Factor - In Germany, a Tradition Falls, and Women Rise," America is the biggest culprit of high birthrates. As the largest culprit, Americans have a responsibility to redefine traditional family values and usher in a new era of global consciousness. This is not a Religious or Political issue -- this is a Human issue.

a.vant-garde

–noun

1.	the advance group in any field, esp. in the visual, literary, or musical arts, whose works are characterized chiefly by unorthodox and experimental methods.

–adjective

2.	of or pertaining to the experimental treatment of artistic, musical, or literary material.

3.	belonging to the avant-garde: an avant-garde composer.

4.	unorthodox or daring; radical.

from dictionary.com

"Avant-garde. . . means "advance guard" or "vanguard". The adjective form is used in English, to refer to people or works that are experimental or innovative, particularly with respect to art, culture, and politics." from wikipedia.com

The notion of avant garde as related to mainstream culture was developed largely during the early 2oth century by cultural and critical theorists. These theorists described the "vanguard" or "avant garde" as the rejection or opposition to mainstream values. The values the avant-garde opposed were largely dictated by industrialization and capitalism, and, according to critic Clement Greenberg, based on phony, fake, and mechanical cultural constructs. Yet, like Benjamin discussed in "Art in the Age of Mechanic Reproduction," it's a fine line the opposition must walk if they are to be sure to remain truly oppositional instead of being made into a pawn by the same culture that is the subject of the criticism. A New York City critic, Rosenblum, suggested that from the mid-1960s onward, progressive culture has ceased to play it's oppositional role and instead, is bordered by what he called "avant-garde ghosts" on one end and a culture in a constant state of flux on the other side. The interaction between the two is varied, but often the result is a Marxist indirect quashing of the avant-garde position. Due to it's reliance on mass culture and its inability to separate itself from the time and place of its existence, avant-garde opposition can actually be used by the 'ruling class' as an way to negate the relevance and importance of the avant-garde opinion. In other words, opposition is transformed into a mechanism used by and reflective of the 'ruling class' that its supposed to reject and critique.

In light of this, what does it mean to be avant-garde? What ideas, actions, definitions, and theoretical implications are imposed by the juxtaposition of present-day mass culture and the so-called empty-shelled existence of the avant-garde?



In 1968, when Cohen v. California was decided, the defendant's message "fuck the draft," printed on the back of his coat, was an effective cultural critique. The Supreme Court held that the it was a violation of the defendant's first amendment rights when he was arrested for wearing the jacket inside a courthouse. The jacket was an adversarial masterpiece, largely due to the constitutional issues it raised and tested.


What does this mean anymore?