Filling the tank for democracy

All of us who drive cars have to buy gas. It's actually very painful at present to fill up the tank with prices well over $2.00/gallon. Here's a way to alleviate some of the pain if you are not a fan of The Fuhrer.

Apparently, Citgo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. What better way to protest the Bush foreign policy than to gas up at your local Citgo. You can find a station here.

According to Jeff Cohen over at Common Dreams, "By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans. "

"Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does, Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn't have 60 percent of its people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty in Venezuela. That's why large majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to overthrow Chavez."

What a novel concept--using the wealth of one's country to alleviate the suffering and eliminate the poverty of its people. Good lord, that's downright revolutionary!

For me, it's easy, as I usually hit the Citgo in Yarmouth on my way south. It's convenient, as it's on the southbound side of Route 1, just off from I-95.

If you have a Citgo in your area, drop your $20-25 and support some democracy for a change.

This is the anti-boycott in support of the anti-Bush.

Losing another icon

With the arrival of the interstates and America’s embrace of the automobile came the need for roadside diners and lodging along the country’s byways. With its bright orange roof, Howard Johnson’s loomed as a beacon for tired and hungry travelers, becoming a stopover of choice (and often necessity) for those on the move.

Like so many things linked to our nostalgic glances backwards, Howard Johnson’s is slowly fading away, as the chain that once had 800 restaurants stretching across the fruited plane, is now down to eight. According to Walter Mann of North Haven, Connecticut, the decline of the chain began 25 years ago, after the company was acquired by a British conglomerate. Mann, who runs a website devoted to the venerable roadside chain, indicates that the company has been sold two more times since and now sits in the hands of Franchise Associates, Inc.

My experience with Howard Johnson’s is limited to a couple of stops over the years in Springfield, Massachusetts, traveling westward on the Mass Pike. One could usually get a burger--fat and greasy like it was meant to be--not dry like cardboard as many of the processed fast food versions are. Granted, with the arrival of the food Nazis and all the health warnings against any of life’s guilty pleasures, fat and greasy hamburgers are the food equivalent to cigarettes--items guaranteed to get you listed as a “leper” and shunned, if caught using

I also recall a song by the New England band NRBQ. I’m not sure what the song title was, but they sang a song with the words, “Howard Johnson’s got his HoJo working, HoJo working on me.”

Mrs. Words tells of a childhood memory of bowling and burgers at the local Howard Johnson’s in Falmouth. Her friend, from the ritzy side of town, that being Cumberland Foreside, used to have a birthday party which meant bowling and then a post-lanes shindig at the orange-roofed eatery on Route 1. The Mrs. recalls it being her first (and only) birthday party where she went to a restaurant.

“It was fun to be able to choose anything off the menu,” said Mrs. W.

Interestingly, the former HoJo's in Falmouth became a well-known local eatery for several years, with this writer logging a season of discontent waiting tables there. During my winter of desperation in 1997, while between my series of dead-end corporate gigs, I worked for the eatery slinging hash and regaling diners with my sharp wit and caustic sense-of-humor. Fortunately for me, a falling-out with my boss made my stay there relatively brief--I wasn't much of a waiter.

Mrs. Words, who travels about the state and occasionally southern New England, recently stayed at one of the remaining eight HoJo’s while working in Bangor. She recalls the waitresses being very friendly, but that the cleanliness of the hotel wasn’t up to par with competitors such as the Ramada, Days Inns, or Holiday Inns that she’s stayed at.

With Bangor being one of the few left, I hope I’ll have the opportunity over the next few months to stop in, chat with the friendly staff and have one of their 16 flavors of ice cream (they used to have 28) before they shutter the place and tear it down.

Have you heard of Phantom Buffalo?

This week has been an odd week. I've had very little time to write and focus on the book. One book-related event was my Wednesday evening talk that went very well. It's a bit intimidating to speak in your former home town, in front of family, friends and those who remember all the stupid things you did as an angst-ridden adolsescent. All told, the turnout and reaction to "Local Baseball Made Me Do It" was very positive.

I also spent some time driving in the car running errands locally. This allowed me the guilty pleasure of listening to some local college rock via WBOR and WRBC. On Thursday, while off to see my friend Marina become an American citizen, I heard this incredible track by Phantom Buffalo on WBOR. If anyone has never heard of them, they are this virtually unknown (at least locally) band of former art students (?) who were formerly called The Ponys. Apparently, some midwestern band already had rights to the name, so the band formerly known as The Ponys are now, Phantom Buffalo. I do remember this band having a killer track on a previous GFAC 207 CD. I also caught part of their set at the 2003 WERU Full Circle Fair.

Lest you think that my gushings about them are merely the product and perspective of a holed-up writer with tunnel vision, I found these reviews. Curiously, these are from across the pond, from both the BBC, as well as No Wax. Maybe these guys are gods in the UK?

As crazy as I've been with my baseball organizational chores this week, I've enjoyed the paucity of time I've spent focused on politics. Remarkably, my outlook has been amazingly close to what some might call optimism. Maybe there is some inverse correlation between music, happiness and sick fixations regarding political corruption.

Blogging as business

It always amazes me that there are people who still don’t know about blogging. Inevitably, when I ask someone, “are you familiar with blogging”, at least 75 percent of the time I’m met with an odd look of confusion. I guess I should understand that there will always be people behind the technological curve—I mean there are those who are still using rotary dial phones and can’t program a VCR. Yet, with the discovery of blogging by the mainstream and everyone from talk show hosts, to corporate CEO’s now maintaining their own blogs, blogging has acquired a certain portent, even with establishment types.

What I find most interesting about the amount of ink and discussion given to blogging, is how lame much of the analysis and even the uses of the platform are. I don’t necessarily think that blogging and staid corporate communication are necessarily a partnership worth undertaking.

In my own area, a Friday column by business writer Eric Blom in the Portland Press Herald on the future of blogging and the continuous emails for seminars by a local entrepreneur indicate to me that blogging is here to stay—at least for awhile longer.

Interestingly, in the same way that traditional media and business communication tends to make conversation boring and misses the real issues, so does blogging done by those who are interested only in how much commerce it can bring their way. A CEO who uses a blog to continue to communicate in his traditional dysfunctional way—hiding behind a veil of power and control with the object being to manipulate and even intimidate—will achieve nothing from maintaining a blog.

Media personalities such as Arianna Huffington and her cast of elites at Huffington Post are betraying the true intention of what makes blogging unique. Given the democratic nature of the platform and the freeform (and even open source) connotations inherent in it, I don’t think it’s a tool that will work unless traditional models of communication are thrown out the window. I’m not talking about discarding grammatical constructs or basic spelling, but I am talking about using blogging to spin lies and obfuscation more favorably. I despise those who use their blog as just another tool to market and manipulate.

A perfect local example of how traditional techniques and staid business practices are beginning to invade the blogosphere involved a local entrepreneur who I’ve written favorably about. She had a profile done on her product that one could argue was unfavorable and even unfair. Some communication passed back and forth amongst several parties and I weighed in on the matter. This entrepreneur posted about it on her blog and then, about a week later, the original post, as well as comments I had posted had mysteriously disappeard. She had obviously taken the original entry down and I surmise that our local blogging “guru” and web design pro (the guy conducting the business seminars, who also btw designed her blog) advised her to not use her blog and engage in “controversy”.

Personally, I don’t care what anyone does with their blogs. I’m a perfect example of someone who uses both of mine to do things that I wouldn’t expect anyone else to embrace. I mean posting material that is sure to inflame, incense, and generally piss off half of your potential readers (and possible customers) isn’t necessarily a model for business success. At the same time, I want to be seen as a writer who is willing to take risks, look at issues with a perspective markedly different than mainstream journalists and others seeking to perpetuate the same old tired status quo, and generally position myself away from the pack. Interestingly, for all the material I write that might put people off, I’ve also written articles and features for mainstream publications that falls within the parameters of mainstream journalism.

For good or for bad, I’ve used my blogs to build some type of (dare I say it?) branding. If you are looking for polite takes and knee-jerk responses to the news, politics, culture, music and sports, then this ain’t the place to be getting your material. But if you want some analysis that’s thoughtful, researched, even if it isn’t always easy to digest, then I think I can help you out in that area.

Blogging gives voice to many (like me) that don’t always have easy access to the controls of communication. I hope that this domain doesn’t become polluted by those who have no intention of utilizing it for anything other than their latest advertising strategy.

Can you say "fascist"?

I know that the little matter of free speech is no big deal to many, particularly younger folks, but some of us still think it matters, if just a bit.

Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) puts the Bush administration's clampdown on dissent in context and ends by saying, "It is in this context of an overall attack on dissenting opinions that the effort to censor cable and satellite TV becomes truly frightening. This is not simply about cleaning up offensive content; it is about the extreme right wing pushing to limit the free exchange of ideas. The time has come for all Americans who love freedom to let the government know that they don’t want Uncle Sam turning into Big Brother. "

I urge you to read the entire article.

From Common Dreams, via In These Times:

Remote Control
by Bernie Sanders

In his 2004 inaugural address, President Bush spoke repeatedly about the need to bring freedom and liberty to the world. In fact, he was so focused on the concept that he referenced the word “freedom” a whopping 27 times during the 21-minute speech. I’m happy the president is embracing the concept of freedom. Now if we could only get him to start practicing what he preaches.

Since his inauguration address, President Bush and his right-wing colleagues in Congress have launched a full-scale effort to limit and control the programming Americans are able to see and hear over the airwaves and the Internet. In short, they’re going after your computer, your radio and your remote control.

In March, the House passed legislation to dramatically raise “indecency” fines for broadcast television imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to $500,000. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, heralded the high fines, saying, “This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families to come back into their living room.”

Emboldened by this success, conservative leaders like Barton and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) are threatening to go even further. For the first time, they want to apply indecency standards to cable, to satellite and even to the Internet.

“We put restrictions on the over-the-air signals,” Stevens, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in March, while speaking to the National Association of Broadcasters annual state leadership conference. “Cable is a greater violator in the indecency arena. … I think we can put restrictions on cable itself. At least I intend to do my best to push that.”

And Barton told reporters, “In the foreseeable future, you are going to see a convergence [of standards]. I stand by that. … The impact [of indecency programming] is going to be the same in the home. It’s irrelevant what the ownership or the origination of it is.”

If Stevens and Barton have their way, it means goodbye to “The Sopranos,” goodbye to Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show,” goodbye to the boys of “South Park,” goodbye to “Deadwood,” goodbye to Dave Chappelle and goodbye to many other shows enjoyed by millions. Faced with strict FCC censorship rules, all of these programs will be removed from television altogether, substantially rewritten, or banished to late night. Let’s keep in mind that these are not shows broadcast on public airwaves but rather on cable programs that consumers select and pay for. Apparently the right-wing ideologues believe they know best what programs Americans should be allowed to purchase and view. If these regulations are imposed on paid cable and satellite networks, it will have a chilling impact on freedom of expression in America. Today, they are going after Howard Stern and Tony Soprano. Tomorrow, who will be their target? Will it become “indecent” to criticize the president?

These effects have already been seen on broadcast television. Given the looser rules governing cable and satellite, the change to paid programming will be even more drastic under FCC oversight. Controversial or cutting-edge shows will become increasingly rare as programmers become more and more limited in the types of topics they are willing to explore and the kinds of guests they will invite.

Sadly, this is not the only effort currently under way by the right to determine what material is appropriate for the American public to see, hear and read. The effort to censor cable becomes even more ominous when viewed as part of the larger attempt by the Bush administration and its allies to limit public discussion of minority opinions.

In recent years, the Republican leadership has used unprecedented measures to crush dissent in Congress. During the recent passage of the Bankruptcy Bill, for example, no opposition amendments were allowed on the floor of the House—effectively silencing public debate of the bill.

Perhaps the most blatant example of intolerance for dissenting viewpoints, however, comes from Bush himself, who is currently traveling the country holding “town meetings” on his Social Security privatization plan. Despite the fact that these ostensibly public meetings are paid for by taxpayers, American citizens who disagree with Bush are not allowed to attend.

It is in this context of an overall attack on dissenting opinions that the effort to censor cable and satellite TV becomes truly frightening. This is not simply about cleaning up offensive content; it is about the extreme right wing pushing to limit the free exchange of ideas. The time has come for all Americans who love freedom to let the government know that they don’t want Uncle Sam turning into Big Brother.