did The Secret cause the Recession?

http://www.getrichslowly.org/2007/06/11/get-rich-quack-david-schirmer-of-the-secret/


*  *  * 

January 2018

The title of this post was one of my proudest moments writing this blog.  I remember when i came up with the premise, and it's the reason that i continue to punch keys on this little corner of inter-obsolescence. 

It's a tweet, before there was twitter.  (was there Twitter in 2010?  anyway, i didn't know about it if there was).  A forum to posit incomplete thoughts and premises, and pass them off as modern wisdom. 

This thought was the underlying absurdity of American Capitalism and our (sadly not unique) taste for mumbo jumbo. 

The Secret was a dumb book that was massively popular for a time, particularly when i was a Barnes & Noble bookseller.  The premise was essentially that if you believed in the Secret, you could use its powers to magically make whatever you want to have happen happen.  This is called manifesting.  It's dumb, but kinda fun to think about.

The Secret at its core is a concept about selfishness.  We like to pretend (in magic, but also in capitalism) that we can win, but that there is no one losing on the other end of our win.  Capitalism (again, like magic!), is very good at making things invisible.  In particular the lines that connect things.  You win in capitalism when you find a cheap cool sweater (or a $1 hamburger), and it's easy to pretend that the worker who made that sweater or our entire ecological system aren't losing in that deal.

American capitalism - American oligarchs - are at their core about that same selfishness.  Oligarchs pretend they have magically manifested something that no one else could have, and they are therefore owed what they have taken.  In reality, the world is more McLuhanistic (or Benjaministic?), and most things that are would have been eventually anyway... probably, but in a new way.

—Right?

When did everybody start saying "—right?" as a response to everything?

Has anyone else noticed this? There came a time (i think) when everyone decided that "right" was the appropriate response to just about anything.

I'm not sure exactly what it is, but suddenly everyone can say "right" after anyone says anything... and it's not just saying "right" it's asking, sort of, "right.

Anyone else noticed this? I thought it'd started just with a couple I'd met (Val & Sean - seriously, where did you get this), but now suddenly i found everyone saying "right?" after most everything i'd said...

Is this new, or just new to me?

"Building a New Country"

*Note: Obviously, first and foremost, when talking about Haiti today, we need to think first about what we can do to help. Please go to www.clintonbushhaitifund.org or the American Red Cross to help...

In an interview this morning on Meet the Press, Bill Clinton (alongside W.) stated that what our project (or perhaps 'their project') in Haiti really is, is not so much "rebuilding their nation" after this most recent disaster, but more about "building a new nation". This distinction gets washed out in parsing out the term 'nation-building'. Given Haiti's unique history, from its founding, its early isolation, the crippling "debt" it incurred for revolting against French Slavery the idea of the United States imposing on Haiti any kind of political plan for moving forward is at best problematic. I'm not sure Haiti can fit into traditional models of 'development', 'democratizing', or 'nation-building' and attempts to apply cookie-cutter methods have resulted in (and will continue to result in) an undermining (an erosion, I suppose) of what is essentially Haitian.

It seems what's troubling, perhaps moreso in Haiti than elsewhere, is the familiar post-colonial critique of developing determinism, that is, the idea of a developed nation helping a less developed nation become more like the developed nation. With critiques of Haiti's very culture (from both the certifiably insane & purportedly credible) coming swiftly on the heels of unimaginable devastation,

During the interview, Bush was smiling way too much. And he used the word "Scheister"... He said that the advice that he'd pass on to the Obama is to not be discouraged by the fact that you can't always get aid moving quickly.

Meet the Press' historical setup of the U.S.' relationship with Haiti started in 1934, at the end of the U.S. occupation. It then goes on to 1994 when Clinton sent troops in to Haiti to re-instate Jean Bertrand-Aristide to power, skipping over 60 years of intentional ignorance - most of which involved the Pop & Jr. Duvalier regimes, which the US allowed to exist because it generally allowed us to institute our contemporary agricultural bill, which created favorable tariffs (for us, not them, natch) and convinced Haiti that its future was in 1) tourism 2) sugar cane (i.e. rum) 3) coffee or cotton or some crop that the US doesn't want to grow and sell you and heavily inflated prices (i.e. rice).

CNN bursts into action...

I just did a quick flip through "our" "news" "networks" - Keith Olberman (granted, a rebroadcast of his earlier program) was discussing the Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien fallout, Fox was foaming (in a Greta van Susteren rebroadcast) over a potential Tea Party Victory in Tuesday's Special Election in Massachusets to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, CNN (also rebroadcasting some earlier Anderson Cooper) is talking about news, at least in the sense of 'something new'

"Haiti is 95% black - Haiti religion: 80% Roman Catholic - Haiti Official Language: French"


*  *  *

September 2018
This is a post where I was clearly reacting to CNN's coverage of the Haitian Earthquake.  I do not know, from the above, what I was working toward.  Except, of course, that CNN (and thereby America) just do not understand Haiti. 

The quote at the bottom is something I must have heard (or seen on the feed on the bottom of the screen) CNN say.

Haiti is not 95% Black - it is 100% black.  This doesn't mean that everyone who lives in Haiti, or even is Haitian has black skin or African roots.  Most do, for sure.  What made Haiti fascinating at its origins was that it declared all of its original citizens "neg" - black.  Everyone was included at the outset.  Of course, the 'swamp' asserted itself, like it always does.  Those with some power grabbed more and more and more, and it became one of the most disparate nations in all the world (but the US is catching up!).

These days folks say that Haiti is 50% Catholic and 50% Protestant and also, of course, 100% Vodou.  Haiti is a hyper-religious country.  This is its strength and its downfall.  Too often, hours of Christian prayer are displayed as the logic for why things should turn out better for poor Haiti.  What's more important, i think, is the difference between Vodou and Christian divine intervention.  White Christians assume that God is planning to save them.  Vodou practitioners cajole lwa to do their bidding.  They work with them, and ask them for favors.

Haitians don't speak French... just like Americans don't speak French.  A lot do, but the Haitian language is Haitian.  Kreyol is a derogative, but it's hard to convince us that we are who we are. 

Untold Richness: A Knee-Jerk Review of Alan Lomax in Haiti

Even on picking up this 10-disc, 2-book boxed set of the music of Haiti recorded in 1936-7 by folklorist Alan Lomax you are impressed by its weight (both literally and figuratively). The front cover sports the statement "Recordings for the Library of Congress". On the back, a sticker on the shrink wrap is the promise of the box' contents, books, music discs, a map with Lomax' original travel notes, and film footage of their visit.

But as with all good boxed sets, it is in the actual opening and exploring that you get most of your value. The first thing you notice opening the over-sized cigar box is the smell. There is a scent of sweet tobacco (already, unfortunately fading in mine) as if the box had been found and repurposed by Lomax himself and sent straight to you from 1937. The Notebook: Haiti 1936-1937 is attached to the cover, in a separate sleeve. The title is handwritten and the book looks like a bound notebook. It is a collection of letters, notes, and commentaries written by (and to) Lomax during his travels.

The second book contains the liner notes, written by Gage Averill and consists of lyrics (translated and in the original Creole), notes and pictures. A foreword is written by Lomax' daughter (?), Anna Lomax Wood and the entire project is impressively intricate and rigorous. The map (as well as two mini-photos, which seem tossed in as an afterthought) provide an oddly exciting tactility to the experience of listening to the lo-fi recordings.

On the whole, the set is an invitation to a lost time, just a few years after the U.S. Occupation ended (1934), and in being transported, you're also given the opportunity to understand that world thanks to the copious notes and commentaries.

Why You Should Major in English

In a couple recent conversations I've had with some colleagues and a student in my 101 class, i've come to a realization that really has no business being a realization at all (because it's so obvious): English, as a discipline, is really bad at marketing.

The thing is, though, that I'm not convinced that English should be bad at marketing. In a recent conversation with setherick, i brought up my "new" concept of "Applied Metaphorics", which he explained to me was, essentially, a marketing major.  I disagreed with this, having taken some marketing coursework in my undergrad, and having discussed a variety of homework that my business, advertising, and marketing majors in my comp classes are assigned.

Near as I can tell, the business and marketing courses at most mainstream colleges and universities has not changed much. Sure, it's added a  squalling assurance that 'social media is the relevant', but otherwise the courses seem, essentially, to teach young people to fill out paperwork. 

Produce a marketing plan, put together a proposal or (arf) a PowerPoint proposal. What's missing, of course, is thought. 

*  *  * 

Now of course, professors of marketing and students thereof and such will object: "...but SWOT analysis and Marlow's hierarchy of needs" &ct., and yes, these are concepts which are learned and internalized, which is well and good as part of a curriculum. 

What English offers that few other disciplines do - you can find it in Philosophy, and well taught History and Psychology courses - is a course of study that questions the underlying assumptions, both of itself and anything that it takes aim at.  This process of inquiry is a great basis for any course of study.

I heard someone at an academic conference (or maybe it was an English class...) once opine that English was the fundamental discipline.  That any other course of study could fit within our purview, and (almost) before you start to work in any other area, you need to "do an English class" on it, and be sure that your terms and underlying assumptions were solid before proceeding.  Someone else had the thought that Physics was in fact the fundamental discipline.  I love this idea, although I think the way that sciences are taught, it can't be used in the way that it naturally would fit.

So, as you're looking at a course of study - consider English... I know when I am looking through resumes and trying to find someone who stands out, a humanities degree, and especially an English degree, make me look a little more carefully at their other experience and qualifications - regardless of the position.

(the second section was composed on 8/27/17 - finally semi-finishing this thought...)

The Choc-a-lonic

Here's a superb after-dinner cocktail. After you've had a lovely dinner out (or in, i suppose), and are looking to wind down and taste something sweet (actually, this seems a bit TOO sweet, but it's really not, if you want a seriously boozy dessert cocktail) this is just about the perfect cocktail:

The Choc-a-Lonic

2 oz. vodka (chocolate vodka may be substituted {or partially substituted})
1 oz. Kahlua
1/2 oz. Frangelico
1/2 oz. heavy cream
1/4 oz. Cointreau
some chocolate sauce

Mix the first five ingredients (or reasonable substitutes) and shake them together vigorously in a cocktail shaker over ice. Line your martini glass with chocolate sauce (as much as you want). Pour into glass & get ready to enjoy. Seriously.