Divided We Fail: How Individualism is Holding the U.S. Back

To understand the swampy depths of American individualism is also to acknowledge that we have a serious inability to comprehend looming disaster. In fact, we’re uniquely terrible at it. 

Loosely defined, American individualism is the idea that prosperity and growth is overwhelmingly the result of an individual’s hard work, cleverness, grit, and all that. (It’s both hilarious and fitting that one of our most reviled and economically disastrous presidents, Herbert Hoover, was the main architect behind the notion of American individualism.) 

On one hand, this belief in individualism seems empowering. It tells us we are the captains of our own ships. It tells us we don’t have to be defined by our childhood traumas or underfunded school systems. It tells us that through scrappiness and ingenuity and discipline, we can rise above our circumstances and succeed, no matter what. 

The inverse, of course, is that our failures are also ours alone to bear—with little regard for the systems and circumstances that cause some people to spend lifetimes catching up to where others were simply born. 

American individualism explains so much of what we get wrong as a country, even in 2019. We downplay the systemic racism and violence of our police force through tunnel vision that tells us there are only a “few bad apples” rather than a flawed, oppressive police state. We’re unable to treat things like healthcare or housing as basic human rights, positing instead that those without access to food or shelter probably just haven’t “earned” it. And higher education—often treated as the great equalizer by meritocrats—is so expensive, it’s crippling our economy as a whole. Yet too many students are blaming themselves, and too many people are blaming students.

One is the Lousiest Number

These days, it’s hard to pick what to worry about more in the U.S. The list of societal threats certainly is long—climate change, the impending retirement crisis, the ongoing student debt crisis. These problems have been worsening for decades, and they’re all the result of failures at a systematic level. 

The climate crisis was ramped up by decades of poorly regulated industries that pumped carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The retirement crisis that will likely come full force when Generation X starts leaving the workforce was set into motion by a shrinking pension system and the increasingly uncertain future of Social Security. And higher education became outrageously expensive over years of unchecked soaring tuition and fee increases.

But not everyone recognizes these mass-scale problems for what they are. Instead, too many people are blaming individual choices for giant societal failures. And these arguments are distracting us from collective solutions. Realistically, no one should be arguing that student loan forgiveness is a “half-baked” idea steeped in self-interest. Or that climate change can be reasonably combatted through laudable (yet mostly insignificant) individual actions like going vegetarian.

The numbers prove just how puny our individual actions really are against these larger-than-us problems. For example, even the most generous, self-massaged estimates put a single company like ExxonMobil’s annual carbon emissions in the range of well over 100 million CO2 equivalent metric tons. The average American, through even the most radical lifestyle changes and discipline, would likely only lower their annual emissions from about 20 metric tons to 8 metric tons. It would take millions and millions of people selling their cars and going vegan to equate to just one ExxonMobil. (Spoiler alert: There are way too many companies just like it.) 

As Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists eloquently states: “We can’t ignore individual choice and responsibility; at the same time, we also have to recognize that our individual choices are constrained by corporate practices and government laws and regulations.”

A Way Out and Up

All is not lost, though. There is hope.

While the 2020 presidential pool for the Democrats may be a bit flooded, the makeup of the pool has revealed a trend: the ideas of sweeping economic relief and safety net programs are becoming more mainstream. If the Democratic party can just avoid spending its time strategizing against democratic socialism, we could enact policies that tackle these problems at the level they’re actually at.

Party insiders and centrists aside, it looks like voters are—even if just subtly and slowly—pressuring politicians to stop blaming individual choice for societal woes. The idea of multiple presidential candidates touting competing student loan relief programs would have seemed outrageous even a few election cycles ago—and now Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Julián Castro are all on board.

The point is, we’re getting there. And if we can fight against our very American instincts, we can realize—en masse—that our efforts to save our planet might be better spent organizing than remembering to recycle our empty salsa jars. We can take solace in knowing a liberal arts degree isn’t a personal failing that deserves financial punishment. We can accept that, as individuals, we may not be as powerful on our own as we thought, but we also may not be as much to blame for our struggles.

And then, we can mobilize. 

Ramsay and the Rabble: Miseducation at the University of Queensland

For good reason, controversies in higher education are usually of short-term and limited interest to the Australian public, which is undoubtedly much more intelligent than anyone at a typical humanities faculty meeting. Examples abound, but for a measure of proof, look to Dr. Dean Aszkielowicz of Murdoch University, who recently expressed a chirpy contempt for ANZAC soldiers, or, as he called them, murderers unworthy of commemoration. 

Fashionable whinging about a pervasive university rape crisis also comes to mind. The idea that Australian campuses are somehow comparable to the Congo or downtown Mogadishu cannot be believed by a thinking person, which is probably why it’s so popular among feminists of the young and mulish variety.

Such examples of academic mischief dominate the headlines and then disappear. The ongoing debate over the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation, however, has proven to be an interesting exception.

Put simply, Paul Ramsay, the late businessman and philanthropist, left a sizeable bag of money for any Australian university that wanted it. The funds would go toward the establishment of a Bachelor of Arts degree in Western Civilisation, the hiring of academic staff, and generous scholarships.

The centerpiece is a Great Books program in which small groups of students would read and discuss the imperishable works of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Shakespeare, and others. This would provide students with a real liberal education – “the best that has been thought and said,” as Matthew Arnold put it.

That all sounds great, I hear the thoughtful Reader agreeing, and yes, it does. Our universities have centers for the study of China, Islam, and the like; why not establish one devoted to our own intellectual and historical tradition? Ramsay’s goal of promoting “an interest in and awareness of Western civilization” should strike any reasonable person as sound and modest.

Against all this must be set the utterly unhinged reaction from university staff and students.       Countless protests, op-eds, and social media denunciations have left the Ramsay Centre homeless and its millions of dollars unspent. To recap: the Australian National University flirted with the idea and then impolitely declined; the University of Wollongong said sure why not and is now facing legal action by the National Tertiary Education Union seeking to reverse the decision; the University of Sydney, led by the indefatigable Dr. Nick Riemer, is sure to reject the proposal. Riemer, who spends an incredible amount of time sniffing about Ramsay and organizing protest conferences, allegedly teaches students in the Linguistics department. He was the academic loon, you may recall, who argued in the Sydney Morning Herald that the Ramsay curriculum “validates the worldview” of the Christchurch terrorist who murdered innocent Muslims at prayer.

This brings me to the University of Queensland, where there is some interest in setting up Ramsay despite the fact that the humanities board has twice rejected the proposed curriculum. Of course, radical anti-Western zealots desire to be the cause of radical anti-Western zeal in others, so it’s no surprise that the lecturers have corrupted the students.

In an apparent nod to Athenian-style democracy, Student Union president Georgia Millroy organized a meeting in the Schonell theatre, where some five hundred students gathered to debate and vote on whether negotiations with Ramsay should continue, the Brisbane Times reported on May 29.

It must be said that the young toads approached the task with a combination of demagoguery and smugness. With the lecture hall stacked, they loudly asserted their opposition, which was undoubtedly what Ms. Millroy hoped to achieve. Her comrade on the student council, Priya De, described the Ramsay Centre as “racist” without bothering to back up such a claim with evidence, and then she banged on for a bit about white supremacy. Other speakers of similarly limited vocabulary proceeded in a reliably platitudinous manner and added all sorts of nonsense to the Ramsay bill of complaint. In the end, only eight students voted in favor, and the Times should really do its journalistic duty and conduct a second headcount; those brave souls may have been sent off for reeducation.

This incident at UQ and similar ones elsewhere are not mere tussles in Australian higher education, soon to be forgotten. There is much more at risk. The failure to establish the Ramsay Centre would signal the success of “the culture of repudiation”, Roger Scruton’s term for Western culture’s masochistic hatred of itself and its inheritance. One must ask: is a considered appreciation of Western philosophy and history even permissible in its own home, the university? In Australia, the debate over Ramsay will help to settle this question.

For many conservatives, however, the debate is already over, and the losers are on the run. Roger Kimball, writing recently in the New York Post, argued that the Right should give up on trying to change the universities; such institutions are unsalvageable and new ones must be set up in their place. Salvatore Babones, associate professor at the University of Sydney, recently made the same case in relation to the Ramsay Centre. 

This is a tempting path to take, especially for someone like me. I graduated in – good grief, when was it? – 2013, and since then I’ve undertaken the most intellectually liberating experience of my life: the gradual relinquishment of almost all the convictions I held as a university student. This has involved deep reading in a variety of sources, especially the Great Books, and a shuffle to the Right, well ahead of schedule.

That said, I don’t think conservatives should flee the campus just yet. There are good reasons to stay and fight: first, surrendering to the likes of Georgia Millroy and her mob is intolerable to me; and second, I think a kind of victory is possible.

This may be surprising, but I sometimes notice a certain lack of resolve in the anti-Ramsay crowd, despite their vociferousness, and I wonder if their hearts are really in it. Perhaps, deep down, they might even enjoy losing this particular fight. 

How so? Well, the successful establishment of the Ramsay Centre would give many lecturers and their students their favorite thing of all: it would satisfy their desire to feel aggrieved all the time. They’d get quite a kick out of carrying on whinging about their victimhood and oppression. Imagine the safe spaces they’d have to build to protect themselves from those fellow students across campus, the ones who may have a shot at a decent and truly liberal education.

If U.S. presidential candidates were rock bands they’d be…

We still have a long, long, long way to go until the 2020 U.S. presidential election — and the list of candidates seems to get a bit longer every day. So, how do you actually keep track of who’s who? Let’s try turning it into a soundtrack.

Admittedly, the list runs too long to actually break down all of those candidates (there are 20+ actually running in the Democratic primary, though several are polling close to zero percent), so we’ve focused in on the folks who are actually showing a bit of buzz in the polls. Plus, of course, the incumbent who is currently president. From hip-hop to corporate rock and everything else in-between, here’s where we think the current crop of would-be presidents stack up if they were a band headlining a 2020 music fest.

Joe Biden: The Rolling Stones

Uncle Joe has been a fixture of American politics for decades, and he’s launched failed bids for president over the past few decades. But with 2020 in sight, Biden is — by far — the most popular Democratic candidate on the ballot. He’s leading most polls by a mile, thanks in large part to the good will he accumulated as President Obama’s vice-president and a solid legislative record (though it does have some troublesome bits in there, too). But, pretty much everyone sees him as likable, solid and — keyword here — “electable.” Translating that to music, Biden feels like The Rolling Stones of this election cycle. Most everybody likes The Stones, from your granddaddy to your aunts and uncles. They also run pretty high on a bunch of those lists of the best band ever. They’re a solid bet, and pop in just about any Stones record, and you’re bound to get something pretty darn good. Sure, it can get a bit worn at times, but even after all these decades, it’s still good stuff.

Bernie Sanders: Big Star

Bernie has been around the scene for decades, much like Biden, but despite the name recognition he’s still not polling as well as Biden. He was huge in the last primary running against Hillary Clinton, and briefly hailed as the Next Big Thing for a while there. He also introduced some forward-thinking policy ideas, many of which have been adopted by a bevy of candidates now running against him this time around. Take that resume to the music world, and Bernie feels a whole lot like Big Star. The Memphis-based rock band burst onto the scene in the early 1970s, and sadly flamed out not long after. Much like Bernie, it took a while for folks to really latch onto just how great Big Star was at the time. They found a cult following a few years later in the 1980s, and went on to influence pretty much every decent band that’s formed ever since. That said, there are still plenty of people who still love and appreciate Big Star to this day. But, they’ll never be as big as bands like the Stones, or The Beatles.

Elizabeth Warren: Radiohead

Elizabeth Warren is a smart, smart candidate. Of the folks vying for the Democratic candidacy, she arguably has the best ideas and platform concepts laid out in detail. Oddly enough, she’s also polling well below folks like Biden and Sanders. Turning to music, she feels like the Radiohead of this election. She’s smart, probably one of the smartest if not the smartest candidate out there. That feels a lot like Radiohead, an indie band that puts out some clever music and has developed a strong, loyal fanbase with their excellent output (a lot like Warren has these past few years).

Kamala Harris: Tupac

This may seem a bit obvious, considering Harris has spoken publicly about her affinity for Tupac’s music, but hear us out. Much like Tupac, Harris has some OG bona fides. Before running for the senate she served as a district attorney and attorney general in California, leading an up-tick in the conviction rate for homicides and overall felonies. She also took on hate crimes during that time. As a senator, she’s taken full advantage of her DA roots to ask the smart, hard questions — without backing down. She has guts, much like Tupac did. Tupac also has a ton of name recognition, something Harris is quickly working to acquire as the campaign heats up.

Pete Buttigieg: Conor Oberst

As a city mayor in Indiana, Buttigieg has exploded onto the scene as a bit of a wunderkind candidate over the past few months. He’s young, smart, energetic and almost always knows the right thing to say when the moment comes. He comes off as accessible and fresh, much like the Bright Eyes frontman Conor Oberst has during his career. Sure, Oberst’s output has always been a bit niche, but if it’s your flavor it’s fantastic stuff. Buttigieg has had much the same kind of run in the lead-up to the primary. In certain circles, he’s quickly becoming a buzzy, respected voice. But, ask random folks on the street, and odds are they have no idea about Mayor Pete. That said, Oberst has always had the potential to blow out the Top 40 with a chart-topper — and Buttigieg is in the hunt to do much the same in the presidential race.

Beto O’Rourke: Foss (just kidding, Weezer)

The handsome, punk rock candidate from Texas became a national sensation when he gave Ted Cruz a scare — but ultimately lost. So, he used that buzz to launch a presidential bid. He’s had some missteps, but there’s no doubt O’Rourke is a tall, charismatic dude. He was also literally in the little-known punk band called Foss back in the day, but we won’t go with that one. Instead, O’Rourke feels more like the Weezer of this election. He’s the dude bro, and is largely popular in a broad, thoughtless, “Oh It’s On The Radio So Just Listen To It And Idly Tap Your Toe” kind of way. Weezer is sometimes the butt of jokes (like that run SNL skit), but they’re still huge — and Beto has much that same kind of potential

Donald Trump: Kid Rock

Time for the big, loud Commander-in-Chief himself. Trump isn’t refined, he’s not all that bright, and he typically just beats you over the head with whatever he’s saying. Kind of like one of his biggest supporters and golf buddies, Kid Rock. He appeals to a certain conservative type of redneck, which is where most of his popularity lies (that applies to both of ‘em, to be clear). There’s also the fact that, if you actually listen to what he says, it’s typically really stupid and nonsensical. We’re just waiting for the presidential radio edit.

Editor’s Note: To be clear, this is all meant in good fun. The presidential race in 2020 looks to be one of the most contentious and important in the modern history of the United States. It’s a big deal, and everyone should take it very, very seriously. But, between all that seriousness, there should be a bit of space to have some fun musing about the folks who want to lead the free world.

Make Dodgeball Great Again

I remember it as if it was yesterday. The recently completed gym floor was crisp, clean, and squeaked with almost every step of the overpriced sneakers that graced it. Battle lines had been drawn and there I was, locked and loaded in the far right corner of the gym. I had scanned the battlefield ahead, and saw that the opposition numbers were dwindling- falling like the cannon fodder they were. My fellow combatants were more than capable, some in fact, excelled like this game was art, like it was real battle.

Then I saw my target, arms to her side, nervously looking across from her side of diminishing numbers. Her eyes screamed ‘fear’ (or maybe indifference, but in my mind, it was fear) and I knew that there was only one thing to do. I gripped the foam of the ball with a vengeful firmness, loaded my arm with the fury of a Nolan Ryan fastball and let loose. My memory says the sound of the noisy gym was broken, and that all the fellow combatants and fallen brethren fell silent, stopped and followed this one moment as the ball left my hand to its intended destination. It was a glorious moment. Glorious because unlike most times, the ball flew through the air with unmatched grace. Unlike most times I threw the ball, there was no deviation, no broken flight plan. And unlike most times, where I’d luckily hit my target on the leg, or on the arm, it zeroed in with laser-like precision and exploded itself right in Annie’s* face. Bullseye. Like a bird exploding from a Randy Johnson fastball.

Did I revel in the glory of that standstill moment? Was the brazen destruction of a fellow combatant as cinematically award-winning as a Spielberg movie? The truth is, that wasn’t the case. Amongst the fleeting chaos of the game, no one saw. No one stopped and watched my moment, and that in reality, it was a split second that remains animated only in mind. I recoiled in shock, partly because it was not my intention to hit someone in the face, no matter how unintentionally glorious it was. But partly because my gut instinct was to slink away into the back of the pack to hide unseen- like a cowardly saboteur responsible for the wreckage, eager to hide from the blame. I didn’t even look back at what I had done.

I don’t remember who won this particular game (safe to say it wasn’t Annie), but it was all part and parcel to the wonderful school-time game of dodgeball.

One that has come under scrutiny, and under the threat, by the researchers discussed in this National Post article, who have labeled it an “unethical tool of oppression”. With such hyperbole, you’d think they were talking about a population who lived under a military dictatorship, or a segment of that population threatened during mass rioting. Not surprisingly, I lived through both of the latter, and no, dodgeball is nothing like either. They are talking about dodgeball- a mostly harmless game (unless you are Annie) played by children during recess and PE class.

The article goes on to say how dodgeball, along with other forms of games played during PE class are sports of “sport of violence, exclusion and degradation” and that dodgeball in particular, is “not just unhelpful to the development of kind and gentle children who will become decent citizens of a liberal democracy. It is actively harmful to this process.” Sounds like it was written by someone picked last in gym class.

We can argue endlessly about the participation-trophy culture that has permeated the discourse of children’s sports (they couldn’t even settle on a winner at the Spelling Bee). But the truth is, I fear greatly for the future of democracy if we equate the game of dodgeball to actual, real oppression. Sure, Annie probably doesn’t like dodgeball all that much, but I too was hit plenty on the dodgeball court. Like I was on the basketball court. But it’s all part of growing some thick skin in this very real world where people don’t throw soft, red balls at you. The truth is, most kids would probably benefit from getting hit in the face with a dodgeball a few times, it’ll be good for them in the long run. This I’m certain of.

I had a lot of fun playing dodgeball as a kid. It’s an absolute shame that there are “scholars” and “researchers” who equate it to very real life issues this world faces. Teaching kids that life isn’t fair from a young age is a good thing. Participation-trophy culture is not. I don’t need a Ph.D. to know so.

Dodgeball teaches you a great deal in a simple game. And if dodgeball supposedly teaches children lessons of democracy, then I sure as hell would want the future leaders of whatever world we venture towards to be able to dodge a wrench when someone throws one at their heads.

*Annie is not her real name. C’mon, how much of an asshole do you think I am?

The Art of Corporate Pandering

In a recent Spectator article, politician Craig Kelly calls out the hypocrisy of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream as it attempted to insert itself into the climate change debate. In the piece, Kelly details the ice cream giant’s position as; “deceptive, misleading and breathtakingly hypocritical … holding hands with anti-capitalists that would seek to destroy them at first opportunity. They are effectively feeding the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last.“

It is not the first time the ice cream company has attempted to insert itself into controversial, political issues. However, Kelly’s point that Ben & Jerry’s insertion into debate is another opportunity for “the sanctimonious to virtue signal” seems to be a common thread amongst many brands today.

Brands are pandering more and more in this day and age, finding opportunities to push agendas while selling everything from razors to soda. Some companies really have turned it into an art. But what in essence does all this corporate pandering actually do? Does an ice-cream company selling sweet dairy products while pushing for marriage equality actually help those who are fighting for it on a grassroots level? Are all these brands genuine in their quest to improve the world or, as many expect, just pandering to whatever current hot button topic is in hopes to sell a few more units? It is possible for companies to support a myriad of human rights campaigns without splashing it all over their products? I suspect not.

This month is Pride Month and we’ve seen countless brands around the globe adorn rainbow flags and push for equality. Rainbow flags on your Nikes? Sure, but why not all year round? Do equal rights in one country matter more to Nike than it does in another? I can’t speak for the LGBT community as an outsider, but here are some thoughts of someone from within the community in regards to these multinational corporations jumping in on hashtags:

Brands during Pride month:

🌈 Exxon: no matter who you love, we’ll make sure your children don’t have a livable planet

🌈 Amazon: we treat all of our warehouse workers like dirt, regardless of their sexual orientation

🌈 Raytheon: our tomahawk missiles don’t discriminate

— Evan Greer is on Mastodon (@evan_greer) May 30, 2019

Like Ben & Jerry’s, the hypocrisy is real. Charlatans in woke clothing. If you’re going to take blood money in one hand, don’t try to shake mine with the other claiming it’s clean.

Corporate pandering is at an all-time high and it seems that even the communities they pander to see through it. Does a shaver company really care about trans rights or does it just want to appear like it does, so people will buy more shavers? The answer is obvious.

I feel like it won’t be long before an automotive brand panders to my Asian heritage during some Asian Heritage month by using technological advancement in self-driving and self-parking automobiles as a way for more Asians to buy their cars. Ok well, maybe just for the Asian women then.

Is there a problem with responsible corporations? Absolutely not. But corporations exist to do one thing and that is to make money. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either. Make a great product that I like, and I will happily purchase said goods. Just don’t try to blow smoke in my face as I, like I hope most people do, see through their smokescreen of insincerity.

Business is business for ESPN, and that business is money not politics

It’s been a wild ride for ESPN over the past few years. Disney’s flagship sports and entertainment vehicle has been stumped by disappearing viewers, declining ratings, and massive layoffs in recent times, attributed to viewers’ cord cutting habits and if you believe some, their penchant for letting a few former/current anchors push political discussions alongside sports coverage. The latter is an entirely different mess that has been discussed ad nauseam, and while I personally don’t mind that ESPN used their sports platform to discuss important political topics, I also don’t mind that ESPN’s current President, James Pitaro, has made a conscious effort to tone down this rhetoric. Pitaro discussed ESPN’s change in a recent interview with the LA Times, discussing among many things, satisfying;

“ESPN’s more traditional fans by steering commentators away from political discussions on-air and on social media, which heightened during President Trump’s criticism of NFL player protests against social injustice during the playing of the national anthem.”

This hasn’t sat well with Deadspin’s Laura Wagner however, who went to town on Pitaro and ESPN’s decision by calling it ‘keeping the old whites happy‘. In her piece, she says that Pitaro’s line about “confused” anchors was a “cheap shot” at former anchor Jemele Hill and current outcast Michael Smith (both bore the brunt of the political backlash at the height of the Colin Kaepernick saga). While Pitaro may have leveled a cheap shot at Hill, my issue with Wags’ piece is that she fails to see this as anything but a capitulation to the so-called ‘conservative’ viewers of ESPN. She labels ESPN’s traditional fans as “the older, whiter segments of ESPN’s audience”- which frankly, isn’t true.

What is a traditional ESPN fan? People who like sports. Sports fans. Who may or may not occasionally cross over to the demographics she labels as “older” and “white”. However, like any rash generalization, it is ridiculous to think that all traditional ESPN fans are old or white. Okay, I’m a little old, but I’m not white, and I would classify myself as a traditional ESPN fan. Why? Because I like sports and I like sports coverage. I also like political coverage, and I like that we have multitudes of options to find good political coverage no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. I just don’t need to find it on ESPN necessarily.

The problem with Wagner is that she feels as though ESPN’s decision to cull back on the network’s Jemele-ness is anything but a business decision. She goes as far as calling it “a chilling vision of the future of the network“. Good grief Wags. Her stating that Pitaro has asked his anchors to dumb down “so that morons who set their Nikes on fire will stop getting mad when they turn on ESPN” is as ludicrous as the statement about the future of the network.

ESPN is smart enough to know that they will get in bed with politics when it makes sense for the bottom dollar, and ESPN (and Pitaro), are smart enough to know that when that hurts your ratings (and ultimately that bottom dollar), you best get out of said bed. Perhaps ESPN realized that in business, the silent audiences still hold a lot of sway. It is a lesson Australian politics learned this past weekend when the silent voters of Australia ultimately became a big part of the election results. Maybe ESPN realized that alienating your audience when your business is about making money is a bad thing- and that the silent viewers of ESPN are needed just as much as their vocal ones.

After the post-election hysteria life goes on

Australia suffered an election shock this past Saturday as the much-anticipated victory for Australia’s Labor Party dissolved, resulting in a win, and a third successive term for the Australian Liberal Party (for North American readers, that’s the conservative party). It was shocking because in the lead up to the election, Newspoll had Labor comfortably ahead and predicted a win. The crushing loss for Labor sent my social media into a tailspin with doom-impending gasbaggery akin to when Trump unexpectedly won in 2016. Unexpected for those who lost, but expected for those who won. But what else is new? Social media is a hotbed for post-election hysteria that becomes tiring very quick. Facebook and Twitter have become the screaming-into-your-pillow of the digital age except that everyone on your friends list, everyone that follows you, can hear you scream. I say this from an apolitical viewpoint because I understand that both sides of the aisle get angry. It’s ok to be angry, but honestly, tone it down, or at least find some focus in your rage.

The Australian election campaign is thankfully shorter than the US elections, so instead of a long campaign of putrid election sloganeering, fake smiles and empty promises, we get about two months. It isn’t to say Australian elections aren’t similar to the low-levels in which electioneering stoops to- far from it. Australia also has a multitude of unpleasant political caricatures. But anyone who has lived through an election almost anywhere around the globe will find that it is all very much the same. After the polls close and the results start to trickle in, social media is awash with panic, moral outrage, and virtue signaling. I’m sure it happens on both sides but because of recent elections swinging a certain way, we are often met with those absolutely outraged that people could possibly have viewpoints opposed to theirs- in an unpleasant manner.

“Good morning to everyone except for those who voted Liberal” and “delete me as a friend” are just some of the tamest of responses I saw all through Saturday night and Sunday. I cannot even print some of the hysterical commentary posted, not because their fears are not justified, but because the hysterical and often contradictory nature in which they present them nullifies any effect they have. On the flip side, there was very little from my friends who are of the more conservative nature, no gloating, no “I told you so”, no schadenfreude. For those who celebrated the election as a triumph of their beliefs, it is like any other day after an election.

Progressives often dismiss the concerns of baby boomers and conservatives as outdated and old. However, when they fail to acknowledge these concerns and instead focus their energies on solving only what they think are the problems at hand, they risk losing supporters. In the case of the 2019 elections, it may have been one of the reasons why it didn’t swing Labor’s way. It is clear that after this election, the silent voters of Australia still carry a big stick.

The day after the election, I spent a good portion of it at the local market, doing what many do on a Sunday. Shopping for groceries and planning for the week ahead. The market was teeming with people, all basking in the sun of a grateful Sunday where we are still enjoying the many wonderful things we have in Australia. As I worked my way through the busy crowds of people, dodging the rushing market goers itching for a good deal on this week’s meat and vegetables, I was reminded that most of these people voted in the elections- from all different colors of the political spectrum. Many of them are furious with what transpired I’m sure, and some, happy that their political party of choice remained in power. But most sat together in relative peace, with only the slow service of the market’s food court clearly troubling their day. It was a reminder that amongst all the social media hysterics, life goes on. It did after Tony Abbott was elected in Australia in 2013, and it did after Trump was elected in 2016.

Today is a new day. For those mired in dismay, the hope is that today ignites your fuel and passion to fight a better, smarter fight. It is like any day after an election.

The Life-Changing Magic of Doing Just Enough

These days it seems like every other book and clickbait article is trying to sell you the newest life hack. They advertise the secret to boosting your productivity, ‘mindful’ tidying methods, or some other supposedly clever trick to set you up for the perfect (and Insta-worthy) life. 

A prime example of this trend is Marie Kondo and her philosophy on tidying, known as the KonMari method. What started as a bestselling book has now been turned into a reality show that has taken over Netflix, preaching the gospel of a tidy home to millions of stressed out people just trying to find a way to make life easier.

It seems like the Netflix show has elevated KonMari-mania to never before seen levels, and although I hear that this is making it an excellent time to pick up some sweet deals at your local thrift store, I can’t help but wonder if this is just another clever marketing trick designed to make us think that a) we can have everything we want, and b) there is actually enough time in the day to make it all happen.

I must admit I was intrigued by Marie Kondo’s The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up when I first heard about it five years ago. I like to organize my shit, and there is definitely something satisfying about having a home for everything. 

However.

If I have to choose between putting away my laundry and getting enough sleep? You had better believe I’m choosing sleep. Ditto for finding spots for every last one of my kitchen gadgets so that my counters are immaculate at the end of the day. 

The reality is, in this day and age finding the time to accomplish everything we need to do much less everything society expects us to do is a challenge. Especially when you factor in our complete addiction to screens. 

So how about this for a new productivity hack? It’s called letting go.

Yes, I have about 7 late reports due at work. Yes, I have last weekend’s laundry still hanging up waiting to be folded and put away. And yes, I wonder when my apartment is every going to look like it belongs to a grown up. But lately I’ve realized that no matter how hard I push myself, or how many to do lists I make and check off, I just never, ever, manage to finish it all.

And this neverending to-do list, this overwhelming feeling that I’m constantly failing? I think this is the root cause of our current obsession with productivity hacks. With tidying systems that promise to eliminate the stress of our lives.

The problem is, you can’t reduce the to-do list or the stress by adding more things to your to do list (Fold your clothes with love! Into perfect rectangles that can stand up by themselves!).

What if instead we aimed to do the bare minimum? Rather than obsess over the perfect outfit for work just show up on time in something that fits the dress code (written or unwritten). Instead of aiming for a 6-pack or bikini body, how about just being happy you can run for the train when you need to and fuck the gym? 

Sure there are things you may want to prioritise, but is it worth the stress of obsessively analyzing every option, every possible path to ensure you get it done perfectly in as little time possible? Or might it be better to aim for ok? Making dinner from scratch once a week and then just making sure you eat regular meals (packaged or otherwise) the rest of the time. Ensuring you get some fresh air even if it’s not training for a half-marathon.

I’ll be honest, it requires some pretty ruthless not-caring at first. Consciously recognizing that you are obsessing over a tidy kitchen even though your eyes can’t stay open, and choosing to go to bed instead.

But once you get the hang of it there is something so incredibly freeing about taking the time you need to unwind and take care of yourself. And in this age of doing it all hyper productivity and obsessive perfectionism, the most rebellious act I can think of is opting out. 

Not only does it shrink the to-do list, it also helps to slow down, unwind and get off the proverbial treadmill. 

So it turns out there might actually be one productivity hack I can get behind.

All Talk, No Rock

Over the past several months, my Facebook feed has been punctuated with many sharing, signing and liking the “Petition to Save the Palace”; Melbourne’s on-going fight to prevent one of the city’s iconic rock n’ roll venues from turning into a luxury hotel. Like most, I’m in the general category of those who wish to see The Palace continue on as a great place for rock n’ roll heathens. However, as I suspected, the collective of keyboard warriors and e-protesters continue to do what I’ve long been against; doing a lot of shouting and talking on the internet without actually doing anything worthwhile about it.

TheMusic.com.au reported yesterday the rally to “save the Palace”, held on a sunny Saturday afternoon, drew “between 500 and 1,000 people” (how vague) after the well-meaning organizers aimed for close to 30,000. A paltry sum in reality isn’t it? There are more than 30,000 “likes” to their Facebook page and over 25,000 people have “signed” their e-petition, but less than 1000 people showed to actually try and do something about it? (And let’s face it, when organizers say between 500-1000 people show up to their even, it’s more than likely closer to 500 than 1000).

We’ve seen this before of course, on a much larger scale. In the recent Australian elections, I was constantly bombarded with pseudo political Facebook rants, silly memes and links to petitions and protests in fear of a Government’s inevitable rise to power. The conclusion? Let’s just say their politicking seemed to dry up as soon as the election results were in. Did they continue on their fight and actually go out there and do anything? I’m not even sure half of them actually voted, and during the times of their loudest protests, could not string together valid and tangible reasons as to why their supposed “preferred party” would be the best to lead the country outside of marginal debates.

This, like much of Generation Now’s inability to translate internet gasbagging to actual tangible results is very much part of the problem. I asked a few of my friends who I know signed the petition whether they went to the rally and I was met with a mix of results that included,

“I didn’t know it was on”

And

“I wanted to but my girlfriend/boyfriend had something on in the park and it was such a nice day”

I don’t have working answers to save the Palace but I know that signing stupid online petitions and liking Facebook pages won’t do the trick. Heck, just showing up in person to an actual event may at least be worth something. And after perusing the Save The Palace website, it doesn’t appear that the organizers have a plan either. Perhaps we should rename ‘Save The Palace’ to ‘Organize the Save The Palace Rally’?

The Palace is a great place and on many occasions I’ve spent nights in the pit, soaked in booze and sweat being serenaded by my favorite bands. I’ve been backstage for shows I’ve been part of organizing and believe the venue is worth saving. Just as long as the people who are trying to save it know what they’re doing. If the venue is saved, I’ll be happy for those involved, but if the Palace ends up being a fancy hotel, I won’t be fussed. Everything has their time and place and in the tangible world and it all comes to an end. If you don’t have the money and resources, then you’re only going to go so far.

Unfortunately for The Palace, the people trying to save it have to try and corral a group of individuals who tend to be furious with their words, but in practice and in action, go only as far as clicking the mouse.

In the end, it’ll take more than what these noble organizers are doing. It’ll take actual money, business acumen and real world thinking if the venue is to be saved. Developers don’t care about rock n’ roll history or art, they care about making money.

We’ll see what happens over the next few months, but don’t bet on The Palace being saved on the account of these people, no matter how noble their intentions are. Generation Now needs to know that you have to do more than sign an online petition or like a Facebook page to activate change in reality. And that’s too bad for the venue, which may soon end up being a place of all talk, and no rock.

Why does Jack Johnson suck so much?

Andrew’s Hamburgers in Albert Park is a culinary institution in this part of town. Its family feel aesthetic is lined with the numerous awards and plaudits the small joint has received in all its years in business. True to form, Andrews is always filled come lunch time, and with its busy staff, the small kitchen area is teaming with workers, including principal owner Greg Pappas. With its cosy locale, there isn’t much room outside of your own head to contemplate anything but diving your teeth into the succulent patty, waiting for the juicy extras the joint is known for to satiate your taste buds.

There are very few things that can ruin this experience, or so I thought.

Recently, during a lunch time sojourn, my ears were met with the untimely and horrific sounds of the in-store radio playing Jack Johnson’s “Taylor”. The station in question was the local classic rock station and one of the reasons why they’re playing a song more than a decade old (other than the obvious) is most likely because Johnson is slated to appear at next year’s Byron Bay Blues Festival, a gargantuan collection of performances that next year will include Dave Matthews Band, John Mayer, Iron & Wine and about a hundred other artists from all walks of life and backgrounds.

Yet as I tried to dig into my burger, my ears shrivelled to the size of raisins and my chest grew tight. My stomach churned and my head became weary. I knew it wasn’t the uneaten Andrews burger in my hand because that is scientifically impossible, so I knew it was the awful, awful sounds of Jack Johnson and that insipid song. But why? It’s hard to pinpoint the numbers and logic behind it, but as I packed up and walked out to finish my burger elsewhere, I was taken back to the song’s much played music video and deduced that my severe dislike for Johnson and his music stems from this 5+ minutes of film.

If you haven’t seen it (maybe it should stay that way), here it is:

It’s got all the hallmarks of a Jack Johnson video- the serene settings all tuned in to the plinky plonky music. It’s got the beach and surf and people dressed like they spend all day there. And then there’s Ben Stiller. Ben fucking Stiller. I don’t hate the guy but God damn it if his stupid facial expressions and his stupid acting in this stupid video makes me angry every time I see, or think about it. I hadn’t in a while too, which was great.

Back in 2002 when I was still living in Indonesia, MTV and Channel [V] still mostly played music videos and hashed through this piece of garbage relentlessly. I suspect this is the cause of my irrational reaction to it today.

Strangely, I don’t mind the Dave Matthews Band and I don’t think John Mayer is anywhere near as bad as a lot of people seem to think he is. Both are to some degree, musically similar, but I cannot stand Jack Johnson. Is it his surfer boy vibes or overtly hippy surfer commune-like aura? I don’t know. Through his six full length albums (all with ridiculously easy going, beach-as names like To The Sea, In Between Dreams and From Here To Now To You… and really, what the fuck is that?), I honestly cannot name a single song or have heard any music that happens to be Jack Johnson and thought, “oh yeah, this is pretty good”.

Maybe its because he’s always got a shit-eating grin on his face.

For some reason, his music has connected with a great deal of people other than myself and while that’s not a problem by any means, it ruined my Andrews Hamburger and that’s just not kosher.

Can one awful song be enough to dislike an artist for life? Apparently so.

Then again, maybe it’s Ben Stiller.