Indebted

“You can have my money, but you can’t have me.” - M.I.A.

"Human society will never escape the problem of the equitable distribution of the physical and cultural goods which provide for the preservation and fulfillment of human life." - Reinhold Niebuhr

This May Day, as students converged on Cooper Union Sq. to speak out on the high costs of education, I was being interviewed by RNN reporter, Dominic Carter, about my own student debt. As students and teachers offered free classes to the public and engaged in open discussions about the role and costs of education in our capitalist society, I explained to Dominic that even though I am fortunate enough to have a full-time (and two part-time...) jobs, my wife and I are still unable to both “make a living” in New York and pay back my student debt. Each month, we are frustratingly forced to juggle expenses and try to determine who will, or will not get paid? Some months it’s ConEd, others, Verizon, rarely Time Warner, and never the landlord, the MTA, or our stomachs.   

  It is aggravating to hear the myths associated with the indebted: we’re lazy, wasteful, whining moochers, incapable of balancing our budgets. But in all reality these are simplistic, spiteful generalizations that rarely speak to the true complexities of those burdened by the current global economic stalemate.  

       I suppose there will always be ignorant, indolent bastards in any society; however, this minority should not determine, nor define the overall policies and principles for the majority of industrious, hardworking individuals who proudly do all they can just to get by. (I should mention here, that I do support social welfare programs and feel our government could do more to invest in our communities.) But I wonder about those not on assistance. Sometimes, especially while on the train, I wonder how many commuters, whom I may assume are “successful” are merely faking it to make it? Likely, there are others who are also living paycheck-to-paycheck: disciplined, competitive, punctual, and desperately doing their best to avert life’s unexpected crises. 

  Arguably, the one thing that remains equitable for both the have’s and the have-not’s, is that all our lives continue to tick by at the same frenetic pace. However, for those burdened by debt, life is rarely an enriching or fulfilling experience. For the indebted, carefree, relaxing, and/or enjoyable experiences can be something of a luxury. (Always annoying to sit through someone else’s stories of European Tours, ski weekends, or glamourous trips to Asia.) Existence for those in debt is rarely a celebration, it is instead one consumed by frustration and a growing anger at not being able to truly achieve freedom. Some become so consumed by their debt that they obsessively fixate-on it, asking, “How can I ever pay this off?” Stop worrying, you won’t. Arguably, most of us will die with our debt; accordingly, I determined long ago that it is better to just accept it and move on.  Life is too damn precious and short to obsess on something I have little control over.

  I have done the math, cut expenses where I can, and budgeted my monthly intake and outtake. I am currently able to just make it; meaning, I can pay for the essentials of this twenty-first-century life, but nothing more. Unfortunately, paying for these essentials, means I am rarely able to make my student loan, credit card payments (which can both begin to add up and seem impossible to pay overtime), let alone put any money aside into a savings account. But I work hard and often. Accordingly, I will continue to do so, but I will not let this vicious cycle bring me down, I will enjoy life while I can. 

          Sure, all the while I may remain like the others - guilty of chasing that proverbial cheddar always hoping that the chase will one day lead to a private Caribbean Island, where the sun is warm and the drinks are always cool. Ultimately, such goals are never certainties and utopian at best. So what? I continue to (as 50 cent advised) Get Rich or Die Trying; nevertheless, reminding myself of what Seneca also said (long before "fifty"...), that “It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, who is poor.” Good point, better to live a satisfying, frugal life, than one burdened by the chase of fleeting materialism and greed ( i.e., the rat race.) 

  Yes, for now, as it has for so long, “making it” in America, is about seeking to live as comfortably as possible. Much of what we “own” or control is based on the credit system: homes, cars, degrees, etc. We hear that the whole economic system is “sluggish” and seems to be teetering on the precipice of collapse. But the job outlook is... good? And the stock market continues to climb. For those of us lucky enough to have food, clothing, and entertainment -luxuries much of the planet’s population so often goes without- we should not complain when taking so much for granted. We all want to work, but not all have jobs. We are all people who want recognition for positively contributing to our communities.

  Before Mr. Carter concluded his interview with me on May Day, he asked: “Don’t you think this debt you have is just un-American? I mean, what if you want to buy a house? Or raise a family and need a car?”

  I laughed and responded that it is in fact totally ‘American’ to live a life crippled by debt and credit. The entire country is in debt! In America, credit culture is just assumed. I told Mr. Carter that I strongly believe the way we look at wealth and success in this country must change. 

  In order for the human species to survive on this planet, we must begin cohabiting with it. Sure we may owe money to the banks, but we owe everything to the natural world that surrounds and constitutes us. Our definitions of 'making it', must change; otherwise, we must face and live-up to the harsh realities of our current inequitable and unsustainable system. True reward can come through creative collaborations that can be both enriching and enlightening for both community and individual alike. Life should be more for the cerebral and mental and less for the material. 
       Perhaps, brother Chris Hedges is right when he warned last spring, that “Growth is the problem.” Yes, growth at the expense of the environment and human equity, ‘is the problem’ but not growth itself. Growth need not be equated with consumption and waste, growth can be learning, speaking, feeding, sharing.

  I don’t claim to know how to pay off my student debt, but I will likely die trying. I also don’t claim to have a doctorate in economics and/or know how to solve any of our many problems; however, I do see a lot of pointless and wasteful practices happening all the time. I want us to ask the difficult questions, not avoid them. How can we rationally respond to our current environmental, economic, and social political crisis?

  Debt is something that can -if we let it- consume our lives.  For some, it is a debt to the bank on a house or a student loan, for others, it is debt to a relative or friend. But for all of us, we are indebted to the planet and life itself. Thus, we are not alone in that we are all indebted. But there are solutions to these problems; however, we must work together and be willing to change ourselves in order to subsequently change them.

Guns

"Guns" Andy Warhol (1981)

"I am a big man yes I am and I got a big gun." - Trent Reznor

In a recent post, Firmin Debrabander writes “An armed society...is the opposite of a civil society.” Agreed. And like Debrabander, I disagree with a popular gun rights saying that foolishly, fearfully claims “an armed society is a polite society.” No, when everyone is armed, they’re scared, and thus, never able to truthfully speak out of fear of getting shot. Guns are truly anti-cosmopolitan (arguably the reason Americans love them.) Accordingly, guns do bring people together -often, crazy people- but nevertheless people. Accordingly, those who hunt, collect, or just enjoy shooting-up beer cans consider guns a “way of life” and may just do everything in their armed power to protect it. 

The gun has isolated and fragmented our society into militias, gangs, doomsday preppers, and active shooters. All represent what Debrander suggests as “a fatal slide into extreme individualism.” Arguably, an isolated individualism that enables larger power structures to better manage and control an increasingly fragmented, fearful population into more manageable pockets of exclusion. When considering the successful revolutionary movements of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I see non-violence and the will of an organized collective as successful modes for achieving change instead of by armed insurrection. 

Gun advocates refuse to admit that their guns do not liberate them. If they did, then we should also rightfully begin considering what other objects or items “liberate" us: marijuana, sex, rock-and-roll. Guns do not liberate. Guns isolate us into pockets of fear.

One can support the Second Amendment, or the Right to Bear Arms, which states, 

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

Recognize that the sentence starts with an important phrase “well-regulated.” Yes, Americans have the “right to bare arms” but not without regulation. And why not? Of course, the sentence also concludes paradoxically with the reminder that this right “shall not be infringed.” And so how we interpret “Arms” technology today against the “well-regulated Militia” days of muskets and bayonets is a frustratingly outdated point of contention.    

Predictably, the gun lobby has been insistent on painting President Obama as a tyrant hellbent on “taking our guns away.” No. Obama is making proposals to address the proliferation of military style assault weapons on our streets (similar to those made by former Presidents Reagan, Bush, and recently by Mayor's and local officials.) Hopefully, real legislation will be brought to vote in Congress. If Obama was a tyrant, he wouldn’t be asking for anything - he would just demand it. 

If gun owners were really concerned with values of liberty and freedom then they would turn their misguided attention to some of the more invasive forces controlling our society such as from the surveillance and security state. Or, more specifically, the complete and utter inequitable and unjust criminal justice system that continues to incarcerate a growing number of Americans often, for non-violent offenses or petty drug charges. Ultimately, how can a society define itself as ‘free’ when so many are kept in cages (more than any other country in the world)?

Nicholas Kristof asks “do we have the courage to stop this?” Our elected officials have presented some very clear pieces of reasonable legislation. But what now? Can Congress ever even begin voting? And even if they could, once it got to the floor of the Senate the bill would be stripped-down of any real legislation. Congress continues to accommodate the demands of the gun lobby. Depending on the polls you look at, Most Americans agree on universal background checks, re-instating the assault weapons ban, and banning the sale of extended magazine clips. Of course, we need not look only to our government for real change - there are steps we can all take to reduce violence (and expand love...) in our society now.

After all, what do we really need these guns for? Since Newtown there has been this many deaths in the United States from gun violence. 

I question if this country will ever be ready to shake its gun addiction? We really do, love our guns and no amount of suffering seems to ever undermine this unhealthy relationship enough to make us break it. I suppose as we wrestle with this difficulty in our understanding, we must realize that this is not only about Gun Safety it is also about preserving our civic responsibility to freely exchange and express ourselves without living in fear of our thoughts being silenced, permanently. 

End Game

“There is no excuse for inaction.” - President Obama

Back in 1972, liberal Democratic candidate, George McGovern, suffered a landslide defeat (61 to 37 percent) against Republican incumbent Richard Nixon. McGovern was the anti-war, grass-roots, abortion rights, “food for peace” candidate; conversely, Nixon, the conservative, southern strategy, establishment option. The loss for McGovern -and, arguably, American liberalism itself- was devastating, especially for McGovern. Of course, Nixon’s victory was soon overshadowed by the greatest of all political mistakes - getting caught.

After Woodward and Bernstein published proof of Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate scandal, Nixon would become the only U.S. president to resign from office. Whereas Nixon was forced to leave the White House in shame, McGovern would be re-elected Senator of North Dakota. In the Senate, McGovern continued building on his reputation as the noble fighter for food justice, agricultural issues, nutrition, and women’s health. Consequently, one cannot help but wonder what America might have looked like if McGovern had won the White House in ‘72?

George McGovern recently died at the age of 90.

                                       *            *            *            *   

In less than a week, Americans will, as they did forty years ago, vote for president. This year, one could suggest that the tables have turned on conservatism and that liberalism now holds the upper-hand. However this attitude is dangerous for a couple reasons. Firstly, the same grim forces of ignorance and fear remain looming at our door and should never be taken lightly; moreover, the “liberalism” and “conservatism” that distinguished Nixon from McGovern (forty years ago) has become difficult to differentiate in our increasingly plutocratic political climate.

Nevertheless, there remains some very clear and significant distinctions between the choice voters can make this election.  

Those who vote for Mitt Romney on November 6th support a Republican party that seeks to dismantle social welfare, public education, medicare, social security, a woman’s right to choose, and the Affordable Care Act. After Romney and Ryan are done tearing-down what has been built-up, they will de-regulate, and “turnover” the role of the Federal Government so that it's functions are farmed-out and privatized to the highest bidders. Such a revolutionary and extreme agenda would thankfully face inevitable political resistance; after all, no administration can just come into power on “the first day of office” and make such sweeping change without being vetted by our established (often frustrating) system of checks and balances. 

Nevertheless, Romney and Ryan will seek to do everything they can to erase regulations so that corporate power has full and unabated reign to pollute and loot away our rapidly depleting natural and human resources. Romney is concerned with the corporate sector, he is a “businessman” that seeks to make a profit for those who are already profitable. He has admitted he is “not concerned with those people...the 47%.” Thus, the 47% should be unconcerned with him. Unfortunately, those who vote Romney cannot hear reason from the walls of their gated communities and Fox Noise bubbles. Such voters foolishly believe that their hard-earned money (even when they have none...) is going to be taxed and then “handed-out” to the moochers.

A vote for Romney supports a blundering and bullying foreign policy agenda that is still geopolitically placed in a Cold War mindset. As President Obama jokingly zinged Romney in the third debate, “The nineteen eighties called and said it wants it’s foreign policy plan back.” Yes, the same neoconservative advisors that brought us the massive troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan would continue to be deployed. Romney’s strategy is to have no strategy except to be, of course, exceptional. America will remain great if only the voter “believes in America.” This strategy will only fail. The military of the twentieth-century cannot be the military of the twenty-first, a more effective, precise, and strategic machine is required. Such mentality is unrealistic. 

Voters who vote for the Romney ticket are unconcerned with truth or facts, they prefer the illusions and lies of xenophobic nationalism, racism, and bigotry. They attribute much of the real suffering and problems we face as a country to the same misguided illusions that continue to be America’s undoing. Those who endorse Romney can only make the argument that “America is great and always will be.” However, America has only not been great these past few years Obama has been in the White House. Such voters have no historical perspective and will never listen to reason.

Admittedly there is a lot of fodder for the ignorant to consume. The political conversation continues to be filled with rumor, misinformation, and straight-up fantasy. But reality will win.

For me, the central argument in this election is the role of government. Romney sees government as the problem (even more so than Ronald Reagan, since he would never implement the same tax plan of his party’s patron saint). Obama realizes that the federal government is necessary and can be improved upon. Romney wants no government regulations on corporations. He would dismantle FEMA so that disaster relief would come from the states (or, even “better”, corporations), healthcare would also be privatized, environmental protection would be non-existent, etc. And (depending on which Romney you ask, or take a quote from his consistently inconsistent record...) would use government to impose the most draconian of laws dealing with marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose. 

The choice is clear. Let us continue to move forward and vote Obama on November 6th.     

“Some Days we’re up. Some days we’re down.”

“Everything that is wrong-headed, cynical, and vicious in me today traces back to that evil hour...when I decided to get heavily involved in the political process...”

- Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72

This past week will be remembered as the one Mitt Romney unofficially lost the 2012 Presidential election. Of course the Republican's polls have been nosedive the moment this whole sordid ship took-off into the stratosphere in the primaries. Yet again, the Republicans have only been successful at spending enormous amounts of campaign funds while totally unsuccessful at communicating any clear and/or reasonable argument for why Americans should vote the incumbent out. They have only managed to communicate a message of divisiveness and isolationism, good show. 

One of the few things Republicans have been great at is providing the daily news cycle with an array of ignorant, offensive gaffes for the late night comedians to salivate and laugh over. For this, we’ll miss them. Of course, in politics, nothing is absolute, there’s still a little over 40 days until November 6th. Accordingly, it would be arrogant and unwise to assert the election is in the bag for Obama. 

But it is hard not to celebrate; especially when the weekly polls -even in the most unpredictable of swing states- have been showing President Obama with a comfortable 10 point lead for weeks. On the New York Times Five Thirty Eight Blog, the President has a 77% chance of winning re-election. Ouch! This weekend, Mitt Romney will appear on 60 Minutes to tell the viewing audience that his campaign “Doesn’t need a turn-around.” Romney will admit that not everything he says is “elegant,” but that he “wants to make very clear [he's here] to help 100 percent of the American people.” 

Yes, Romney continues to believe. (Even when many of his Republican colleagues don't.) As I’ve said throughout this campaign, the choice to “Believe in America” as the Romney campaign slogan suggests, is most apt; after all, to believe in anything means to also willingly ignore whatever happens in reality to disprove and/or challenge one’s ideology. Speaking on the Daily Show former President Bill Clinton said something great: “The problem with ideology is that it has the answer before it has any evidence.” Indeed. And yes, the reality is, Romney’s ideology has no evidence, only belief. Accordingly, he does not speak for, represent, nor, arguably, even care about the American people.      

The stilted speeches and soaring rhetoric from the heavily fortified conventions in Tampa and then Charlotte, are now so very far away. Yet, it was only a few weeks ago that Romney and Obama accepted their nominations. At the RNC, Romney’s speech was interrupted twice by protestors. Of course, it has been a tough election from the start for the presumptive candidate. Even back in the Iowa straw poll, Romney was heckled by a man in the crowd about his remark, “Corporations are people my friend.” The only time Romney has appeared comfortable in front of an audience is in the now famous leaked tape of Romney speaking at a closed-door fundraiser, which (as we now all well know) was a speech full of damning, politically suicidal, sound bites. 

Comments like this show Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama share completely different idealogical visions for our nation (something Mitt Romney himself has been correct in admitting). This election is between two dramatically alternative outcomes. Sure, both men have entered the same vicious and vile political game; nevertheless, the way they play it is in total contrast. As sports writer Grantland Rice once wrote, “When the Great Scorer comes to write against your name -he marks- not that you won or lost -but how you played the game.” How Romney and Obama play the game is totally different. 

What would a Romney administration look like? Romney would likely do everything in his power (including choosing more Supreme Court justices) to prevent women from their right to choose (something he, of course, used to say he’d protect; however, now finds politically convenient to oppose...). Romney would seek to outsource American jobs to the lowest bidders (as he has in places like “Bain-port” . Companies that have been grasped up and consumed by private equity firms like Bain Capital. Which is -as Matt Taibbi succinctly argues here- the economic model a Romney administration would promote. 

Taibbi writes, “Making money justifies any behavior, no matter how venal. The [new] owners of American industry are polar opposites of the Milton Hersheys and Andrew Carnegies who built this country.”) Romney’s foreign policy seems to be informed by the most ardent neoconservative hacks (see Romney’s treasonous response to the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi). On immigration, Romney would make it so difficult for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport” themselves (compare this with Obama’s “dreamers” and support for passing the “dream act”). Gay marriage? Forget about it. Romney's vision for America is contradictory to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Pundits on all sides have been suggesting that Mitt's problem is that he has never been able to relate to "average" American voters. He’s awkward and mechanical. Romney’s forced staccato laughter further plays to the depiction of him as a disingenuous, elite, plutocrat. At times, I’ve tried to imagine what it would be like to sit and have a conversation with Mitt? After all, I never liked President Bush’s policies and decisions; but, nevertheless, I did feel like he would be the type of guy you would want to invite to a barbecue or sit beside at a baseball game. Bush had that folksy charm that is completely absent from the Romney campaign. Romney is not charismatic. The only thing Romney has going for him is an enormous amount of wealth and a large family.

Romney will lose. But no one should feel bad when he does; after all, Mitt will still be unconscionably wealthy and totally comfortable in any of his luxurious homes. But make no mistake, he will never be President of these United States. And with any hope, there will be some moment when Romney (and Super PACers, Karl Rove and Sheldon Adelson) will need to face the cold hard truth - you're not entitled to the office of the President. Money cannot buy votes.  

Politics is a stupid and tawdry game, but it is also, as Hunter S. Thompson once said, “The art of controlling your environment.” A vibrant democracy is based on discussion, debate, and decisions. American voters have a choice this November and despite how cynical and critical we can get, it is important to remember that despite the limitations of our current political system, freedom is a struggle that never ends.

“If you turn away now - if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn’t possible - well, then change won’t happen.” - President Obama

Get out the vote!

RISE

“It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.” - Batman 

“You have been supplied with a false idol to stop you from tearing down this corrupt city.” 

- Bane

I’m relieved I saw The Dark Knight Rises before news broke about the Aurora, Colorado massacre. No wacko with guns was gonna waste money I spent on a good time at the movies! Besides, gun violence in America, what’s new? So jaded. Of course, I wasn’t alone, there were thousands coast-to-coast, and around the world, also eagerly awaiting Nolan’s final installment of his epic Dark Knight trilogy. As I walked into the giant multiplex on Broadway at 1a.m. (the same theatre that hosted the world-premier a week before), I heard hoots, howls, and shouts from other over-excited bat-fans high above the 8 story lobby - “bats in the belfry.” Meanwhile, a time zone away, James Eagon Holmes would carryout a senseless rampage, that left 12 dead, 58 injured, and a morbid cloud hovering over an otherwise profitable opening weekend.

As my friend Aman and I settled into our seats, a fan dressed in a Bane costume stood-up and pumped his fists into the air, others flashed mini “bat-signals” onto the giant IMAX screen. The mood, positive, playful, happy - nothing could spoil this moment. The theatre darkened and the movie began, applause and cheers rolled through the crowd. Yes!

Unfortunately, in a Colorado theatre, miles away from New York, some fans wouldn’t make it through the end of this great film and that is heartbreaking. Christopher Nolan’s comments about the tragedy were apt, “I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me.”

                                            *     *     *

The first line of The Dark Knight Rises is from Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) - “I believe in Harvey Dent.” Of course, Gordon “believes” in what we know is a lie he and Batman agreed to tell about former activist district attorney, Harvey Dent. Who, as Bat-fans well know, was turned into the deranged killer, Two Face, by another sociopath, the Joker, in Nolan’s The Dark Knight. This last installment concluded with Two Face trying to kill Gordon’s son. Predictably, Batman saves the day and agrees to take the fall for his friend Harvey Dent. 

Better Gotham believe in the lie Batman (a vigilante) tried to kill Gordon’s son instead of the truth; accordingly, the legacy of Harvey Dent is protected and mythologized as the hero Gotham deserves. Ultimately, this lie further reaffirms the larger message: vigilantes are bad, law is good. Justice is only achieved through due process, never senseless violence. It is best to work within the system, not outside of it.

Several years into this lie, Bruce Wayne has retired the Batman. But instead of living-it-up in the lavish high society that surrounds him (“phonies are still drinking all [his]free booze”), Wayne is a recluse who watches the city from a distance. All the while, the myth that he and Gordon share works, they’ve managed to somehow keep Gotham’s streets safe. Sure, there’s still petty crime, such as from sleek and sultry cat burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), but any real danger, like the total annihilation of the city by a maniacal super villain (a popular plot through previous bat-films), appears -at least on the surface- curbed.  

Of course, this is Gotham City and once we start to peal back the layers and look beneath, we see dualism and brooding characters weighted with heavy contradictions. For instance, Batman/Bruce Wayne isn’t that much of a hero at all. As Batman he has allowed his absolute goal of bringing justice to Gotham to be reduced to a lie. (Ra’s al Ghul reminds Wayne of this in the film’s bleakest moment, “You used all the tools I taught you... for a city that was corrupt, and a victory based on a lie. Now your failure will be seen...”) 

As Wayne the businessman, he has also ignored his company. Wayne’s philanthropy no longer focuses on noble causes, such as the boarding school Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character, John Blake (who represents the idealism once held by both Wayne and Gordon), grew-up in. In fact, Wayne Enterprises is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy. The governing board, eventually chaired by the wealthy heiress, Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), invests all of the company’s resources into its special projects division, which has been busy building a machine that can harness fusion power to produce unlimited clean energy for the city; unfortunately, this machine has not been turned on, because it can just as equally destroy the city. The core of the machine is explosive and could be used as a nuclear bomb. Thus, that which can save the city can just as easily end it. And as if this theme wasn’t already evident enough, Bruce Wayne later expresses to Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) in the Bat-cave that “tools can either be used for good or bad.” A point, that remains the tragic irony of our postmodern existence.  

Eventually, we see how the tools in Batman’s arsenal (presumably always used for good) can just as interchangeably be used for bad. While the weak and injured Bruce Wayne hobbles around his mansion, mourning the loss of his love, Rachel Dawes, the sinister plan of the League of Shadows festers below Gotham’s streets. Yes, Batman may have defeated Ra’s al Ghul in Batman Begins, but that plan never vanished. The plan of the League must be fulfilled. This fulfillment is the sole intent of -arguably, the trilogy’s most frightening villain - Bane. Who says himself, “It doesn’t matter who we are, what matters is that we have a plan.”

Bane’s purpose is to, literally, smash through the pillars of civil society. Whether it be the sanitation department, which he uses to spread the explosive cement under the city, or greedy business tycoons who he manipulates to gain access to the stock exchange and then bankrupt Wayne Enterprises for a literal takeover of the company. The police department is in fear. Even American football is used by Bane to fulfill the League of Shadow’s goal. The plan itself is for the total destruction of Gotham; however, Bane uses revolutionary rhetoric that sounds like Robespierre. He attempts to convince the citizen’s of Gotham that this is all for the best. That this is liberation, “do as you please!” Thus, Bane is not here to disrupt the structures of society but to “unleash the people’s true potential!” 

I recently had a discussion with my friend, Mark Grueter, in which I compared Bane’s revolution to that of Lenin’s; after all, both Lenin and Bane co-opted revolutionary rhetoric to then unleash a more aggressive form of social suppression. You’re either with Bane, or you’re dead! Bane’s Gotham is Arkham Asylum in the streets. It is a city isolated and afraid.

One of the more interesting conflicts appearing throughout The Dark Knight Rises is whether to believe in the Batman, or not. Alfred Pennyworth explains to Bruce, that the reason Batman cannot beat Bane is because Bane has youth, strength, and most importantly real belief on his side. Bane’s soldiers, as well as many of Gotham’s citizens (as conveyed in the Robin Hood-esque character of Selina Kyle), want liberation. The people of Gotham believe they can be more; however, once they are granted this liberation, it is not exactly the utopia they had in mind. Invariably, Gothamites are tired of all the wealth and privilege enjoyed by the corrupt capitalists, see 1%. The city itself suffers while the rich reap the reward. Accordingly, the city doesn’t believe in the Batman, so now this need to believe is replaced by a more aggressive and ruthless figure, Bane. "Gotham's reckoning." 

Although revolution seems to be an integral part of the story line, redemption is the outcome. I agree with Manhola Dargis’s review that “Mr Nolan doesn’t advocate burning down the world, but fixing it.” Perhaps Batman represents a return to order, which is more mutually beneficial, optimistic, and constructive than Bane’s “next chapter of Western civilization”? I suppose, in order for Gotham to “rise,” it needs a hero and for the longest time, Batman was that lone hero; however, as we see in the the climax of Nolan’s film, in which “Gotham rages and all seems lost, the action shifts from a lone figure to a group, and hope springs not from one but many.” 

Nolan has been most successful at translating the Batman mythos, because his stories are sensible. His antagonists are just as sympathetic, emotionally complex, and psychologically torn as the hero. Nolan makes the unbelievable, believable. The villains Batman is against, reveal and reflect the hypocrisy and corruption of the protagonists, himself. Nothing is ever absolute, a true superhero story for the postmodern era. The responsibility for the next director of any Batman franchise will be great. Nolan has left his story satisfyingly "closed," but not enough so that it cannot be opened again by future storytellers.

Despite the subtle nuances between the Joker and Batman as both “freaks,” and of Bane and Batman being trained by the same League of Shadows - Batman still remains different from these villains in that he remains steadfastly attached to one moral imperative, to never kill. Batman may use the same tools as the League of Shadows (and those greedy asshole capitalists that control Wayne Enterprises); however, it is how he uses these tools and for what outcomes that make him the true hero Gotham deserves.

Mt. Washington

Mt. Washington hike = 6 hours. 6,288 feet.

The New International Center (...in Exile) @The NSPE

"The New International Center (...in Exile)", Spring 2012, NYC

After the International Center (IC) declared bankruptcy and subsequently vacated its location on West 23rd street, hundreds of immigrants and newcomers to the United States lost an invaluable resource for learning English, receiving advice on living and working in the city, and -most importantly- a sense of community. As a volunteer ESL instructor at the IC, both while earning my Certificate in TESOL at NSPE (and long after...), I discovered a unique place, which sought to “Make citizens of the world feel at home in New York.” So when I learned the IC would be closing, I joined forces with other dedicated volunteers and staff to ensure a “New” IC would persevere.

Like many newcomers who immigrate to the United States, we refused (despite the many challenges and let downs) to not quit on our dreams and aspirations. At first, we held a fundraiser, then we used social media sites to organize our efforts, and finally we reached out to former members and volunteers of the center for much-needed financial support (I even agreed to use my NSPE office as a temporary mailing address). Eventually, letters and checks begin coming in and we inched closer and closer to our intended fundraising goal.

While fundraising and logistical planning took place, the exiled members of the IC were still without a proper location to meet. Before the IC closed, many members wrote letters describing a center that felt like “a second home,” where “friendships were made,” and a place where people could go to not “feel alone” or “hopeless” in this new world - America.

To fill in this void, some volunteers began meeting with “exiled” members of the New IC in cafe’s and apartments across the city. At this point, I decided to e-mail Dean Scobey to gain permission to use one of our unused classrooms for two hours, a week, on Friday nights, so that fifteen students could continue to meet and learn English. I wrote Dean Scobey, saying I would take full responsibility for whatever happened. Fortunately (as you can see from the above photo), what happened was a Public Engagement success story!

For ten weeks, I met with fifteen students (sometimes individually to give advice on adjusting to life in New York, write letters for college applications, and to give ongoing encouragement to keep up the hard work and the good fight). Our class was called “English in Action.” Each week, the students came to the NSPE eager to learn English and (even more eager...) ready to present, discuss, and even debate the political issues, news, and cultural events of the week. Some of the topics students presented on were on stereotypes, the American Dream, Noam Chomsky's theories on mass media, Martin Luther King's "Dream", Grace Lee Boggs, etc.

Each class, I sought to out "English into action" by applying Scott Thornbury’s “dogme” approach to ESL language teaching and the results were always a success - our class was consistently lively, dynamic, and purposeful. Accordingly, during and after each class session, I was able to experiment and reflect on my own pedagogy as an ESL instructor. Thus this experience was not only useful for the students, but also for the teacher. It is my hope that more projects like this (and those that take place during our summer ESL outreach program) will continue to take place at the NSPE.

After all, although we often wish to pretend otherwise, our society is an unforgiven and ruthless place mostly concerned with profit and personal gain. Indeed (as Tierno, one student from class, observed regarding America), “Nothing is for free!” Nevertheless, it is refreshing to see a glimmer of hope in places like the New IC and the NSPE, where something is truly for free and where the only thing to gain from the experience is collaborative communication, educational enrichment, and a chance to engage with real world problems so as to reach real solutions.

(As of this writing, I’m pleased to report that the New International Center is no longer “in Exile” and is now temporarily located in the Catholic Charities building on the East Side. Where they will stay until moving into a more permanent location this fall.)