B133-DES84
Reflections On Hacks
Copyright © by Dan Schneider, 2/26/04
A few months
ago several people urged me to start writing memoirs of my life. In addition
they urged me to start placing some prose pieces on websites other than my own Cosmoetica.
The reasoning was to widen name recognition for a potential reading audience for
the memoirs. ‘Twas sound advice and I’ve taken up the calls for both the
memoirs and writing for other sites. In looking about online I’ve been
appalled at the utter lack of writing ability- foremost the inability for most
prose writers (fictive or not) to transcend the mere a to b to c progression of
most tales. As for ‘editorials’ or ‘essays’ the news is even worse.
Though that ‘skill’ takes even less writing ability than prose fiction, much
less poetry, the percentage of capable editorialists are no better than for the
2 higher pursuits.
I shall deal
with my plaints about online prose at another time, but now I want to talk about
one of the reasons I think Hackwriters is one of the literal dozen or so
‘readable’ opinion sites online. First, although the editors have been
squeamish about some topics and references, overall, they are far more liberal
(in terms of editorial leeway) than most other opinion sites whose ideas of
diversity is to ask submitters to ‘read our site’- i.e.- show us nothing
new. Secondly, I’ve found 2 interesting online pundits via Hackwriters.
The first is James Campion, who despite possibly having fallen in to the trap of
being another ‘alternative media type’ (i.e.- braindead liberalism)
actually shows a range of thought in the couple dozen pieces I’ve scanned on
Hackwriters and his own site- from pop to political to sports cultures it’s
good to see some multivalence for a change. His Protean ability to annoy all
people along a spectrum rises above mere gadflyism for its overall playful
quality. If Frank O’Hara (at his poetic best) could have written prose comment
it would likely have been Campionian.
The second
writer whose handful of pieces I’ve enjoyed is Reverend
Father Antonio Hernández. While not as technically versatile as Campion his
prose & subject matter dart & tease. He is a more hip and aware Andy
Rooney of sorts. But both writers exhibit a trait that generally exists in only
writers of quality- individuation; they are not generic. Campion with his
parries and Rev with his two-step, alone, would make Hackwriters a site to visit
a few times a month. But, there have been other occasionally good pieces by
other writers.
End of smile- insert reality check. Ok, now the meat of this
piece. The Hack editors asked me if I might come up with some counterbalance to
Campion’s musings on the primary season. I replied by stating I might better
be able to rebut him in league with a couple of other pieces I disagreed with.
But, Campion leads off. The famed quote, attributed to many, goes something like
this, ‘If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, but if you’re not
a conservative by 40 you have no head.’ Bushwah- Schneider’s Corollary
would read, ‘If you’re not apolitical by 40 you have not lived.’ Yes, in
my 20s I did the activism schtick, and saw corruption face up. 2000 was perhaps
the perfect exemplar of the utter futility of the 2 party system. Bush and Gore
were twins, except Bush’s wife was nicer. And don’t give me that ‘Nader
screwed us’ bullshit. He’d not have been in the race unless a contrast to
the gray Republicrats was needed. Nor give me that ‘Gore was robbed’ jazz.
Of course he was. Both he and Bush tried to steal the election- Bush’s crooks
were just better- and on the Supreme Court.
But, I have to disagree with the whole tone of Campion’s pieces which
seem to view a W. repeat as an inevitability. First, the slate of Democratic
contenders is stronger than that Clinton emerged from in 1992. Is there a one of
them that has the Clinton gift for politics- no. But the top 4 contenders could
woo the Nader vote back. Let’s write off the negligible Dennis Kucinich, Al
Sharpton- who even were he not a con man could not get elected for his skin
color, & Joe Lieberman- who even were he not a stealth Republican could not
get elected for his Jewry. That leaves current frontrunner Sen. John Kerry, erst-frontrunner
Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards, & Gen. Wesley Clark.
Before I get to the pros and cons of these 4, let’s see why W. is so
vulnerable- & would be easy pickings if, say, Bill Clinton could run again.
First is the economy. There is no sharp upswing in sight for the rest of this
year, and the little bumps in the bad economy for the last few years have seen
negative job growth. This killed W.’s daddy. Secondly, while the wars overseas
have gone well their aftermaths have not. Iraq more and more is looking
Indochinese as we hunker in for a long haul. If the death rate of American
servicemen of the past few months continues through the election there will be
close to 2000 American dead with no proof there was ever a link to Al Quaeda nor
the production of WMDs. Thirdly, W. is really Dan Quayle with a better pedigree.
Had Al Gore simply removed the Hanes from going too far up his crack and
shown some passion the election would not have come down to Florida. W. simply,
despite Karl Rove’s hand up his ass, is dumb- really D-U-M!
Unlike Ronald Reagan 20 years ago he does not have the benefit of a)
likeability, b) the illusion of a good economy, & c) an easily
caricaturizable opponent. Fourthly, the last 4 years have seen outrageous abuses
in the healthcare industry- mostly regarding drug companies’ price gouging.
This may finally be the year that even ‘conservative’ seniors say enough is
enough. Lastly, Bush’s Paris Hilton-like affair with spending lacks her deep
pockets. This is driving ‘fiscal’ and Rockefeller Republicans batty. If just
a percent or 2 more stay home than in 2000 Bush is toast.
Unfortunately for
Democrats Clinton was the only Democrat in the last 36 years who knew how to
overcome his own flaws and maximize his opponents’. Still, I don’t think it
will take a Clinton to beat W. First off, the Democrats are still the default
major party for most folks because most voters are middle class and Democrats
have historically been a little better for that bloc. With few exceptions in the
last century Presidential elections are the Democrats’ to lose, which
they’ve raised to an art- excepting Willy. For the Democrats to beat Bush they
have to show real passion, not too much wackiness, and frame the election in
terms of ethical fairness- be it on our post-war conduct, tax breaks for the
rich, healthcare, or a myriad of lesser concerns. Do that, and the silly
‘class warfare’ cries of the Right will prove fallow.
As for the top 4 contenders? Assuming the 5 factors mentioned above hold
true, here’s a breakdown. Kerry is the mainstream candidate with perhaps the
best chance of competing with Bush monetarily. He’s smarter than W., a war
hero who made a principled stand while W. played the bong, and he can appeal
strongly to all regions but the South. The problem is he is the most Gorean. He
has a definite ‘passion’ problem. He’s a creature of D.C. His odds against
W. are 50-50. But, he’s no sure bet to get the nomination.
Campion’s whipping boy- Dean- is also smarter than W., but plays less
well regionally, although his passion (no prob) energizes youth & may moot
any 3rd party challenge. But, his overblown ‘Iowa meltdown’
probably sealed his fate amongst Democrats. He won’t be the nominee- although
he’d destroy W. in a real or tv debate. Although it’s now moot I’d give
him about a 45% shot at Bush.
John Edwards is somewhere between Kerry and Dean- passionate and smart,
but a bit vague and too puppy dog like in his pleas for votes. But, he has the
most chance to improve and remake himself were he to get the nod. Those who
think W. would walk tall against a ‘lawyer’ have not seen that Edwards has
the most potential to approach Clinton’s people touch. If Dean tumbles any
further look for Edwards to pick up the youth bloc. He could become the
frontrunner just by winning 2 or 3 southern states in a few weeks. Against Bush
in a general election he’d have an edge. If even one of the 5 factors worsens
he could win going away.
Wesley Clark can trump Bush on the war, and point out his failures as
Commander-in-Chief without looking Quisling. He could, with a decent Super
Tuesday showing, move in to the lead. My gut tells me that he and Edwards will
end up on the ticket- the order is the key. But, he could also be a Perot whose
callow approach shows as he acclimates himself to from military ‘Yessirs’ to
political ‘Yasm’ms’. He also would be a slight favorite against Bush were
he to get the nod & things pretty much stay static.
Things rarely do, though. Bush could win handily or lose handily as his
papa did. Enough of boring stuff. On to 2 other Hack pieces I’ve a bone with.
Rev Tony (http://www.hackwriters.com/DVDcurse.htm)
recently ripped on DVDs. I was expecting a satire but he seemed to really believe DVDs are not as
good as VHS tapes. Ok, so the Rev has partook of W.’s bong. He argues the same
line that most did against VCRs- that they are too hard to hook up and operate.
Not true. Even if you have to buy a converter box for an old tv it’s still
simpler than hooking up a VCR. Those wacky Luddites! Quoth the Rev, ‘DVD
showed no improvement over a VCR. What I did see was a draconian drop in
videocassette quality, along with the fascistic promotion of the highly
expensive DVDs and DVD-players.’
Over the last few years I’ve slowly replaced my VHS tapes with DVD
& the improvement is stark. In the early 90s I bought a VHS of Manhattan
(for its widescreen gray bars) for about $70. I watched it about once a year
till I replaced it last year with a $7 used DVD bought online. A dozen watchings
had dulled the already average VHS quality. The used DVD? Flawless- even without
the extras Woody Allen eschews. Even better are the quality silent films &
classics available on cheap DVD. I have versions of Birth Of A Nation and
Metropolis on DVD that were 1/5th their price from pre-DVD
‘quality’ VHS distributors like Video Yesteryear. Especially the Kino
Metropolis is stunning in its computer cleanup, not to mention with an
insightful documentary and excellent commentary. 95% of it looks like it was
filmed yesterday. For $9.99 used it was a steal! Similar classic films by Orson
Welles, Stanley Kubrick, and Oliver Stone are so far above their VHS
counterparts that to argue against them is folly. Oh yeah- no machine-killing
rewinds!
Rev counters: ‘Isn't it terrific to pay for an extra hour of garbage
that completely ruins the effect a good film ought to have?’ Actually it
is, especially when renting a VHS or DVD for the same price. When you get a dog
of a film like Hollow Man it’s great to know that at least the extras
make the rental worth it, and are better than the film. For a great film it can
only add, plus you can NOT watch them. Liberty!
Before the Rev flops to the canvas he mutters, ‘They told me the
tape cost $150.00. On the internet I saw that it was the same price everywhere.
All I could say, over and over, was "Damn that DVD shit!" The same
movie is as common as cow pats on DVD, for $30.00.’ But quality films on
VHS were ALWAYS overpriced to buy- I know! DVDs had nothing to do with that.
Sorry, Rev, your columns are cool, but this one was way off.
Now I have to
end with taking on the worst piece on Hackwriters. It is a piece (http://www.hackwriters.com/compulsion.htm)
by a Laura Drentea-Morgan that is so ill-informed about its subject matter
it’s stunning. It’s a screed against pornography that could have been
written by Ted Bundy. As someone who grew up with hookers, gay bars, corrupt
cops, and the occasionally porno pervert in his neighborhood, I reckon Laura is
obviously someone who writes from her own misperceptions of porno.
Personally, I
find it silly and dull. But the FAR greater problem in this country is sexual
repression. Why else use barely legal matchstick girls to titillate and sell
everything from cheese to congoleum? Because most Americans lead painfully dull
lives. The majority of porno users are casual and make up a small minority of 1
or 2 %. In that group perhaps 10% are addicted. But it’s harmless. The idea
that porno leads to pedophilia or wholesale rape is manifestly untrue. 50 years
of Playboy have shown that ogling gorgeous babes is a healthy
preoccupation for maturing males. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer,
and company were either born sick or corrupted by the inability to express
themselves sexually earlier. Suppress a natural urge long enough and its release
will be violence. Scandinavia and Polynesia, where pornography and polygamy
flourish, have almost no sexual violence. Why?
Quoth Laura,
‘It also hinders your ability for a
normal relationship where you interact with others of the same sex, and opposite
sex; limiting your views and values you once had, interchanging them to what now
is considered “acceptable” by the porn industry.’ Spoken like a Falwellian or Feminazi. Tell that to my happily
married best friend, his wife and daughter. These are assumptions with no hard
basis in research.
And just what constitutes
addiction? ‘Taking what is considered normal by the single life of
self-pleasure and intertwine this with a new relationship, your current or new
job, and see how it impacts on your ability to concentrate on your work or
relationship issues. Some have become affected by their continual need to see,
view, indulge in a near perfect environment of what the porn industry has to
offer, in a world of plastic surgery, and breast implants, and a wonderful
airbrush quality to enhance further perfection. Their values and morals have now
been affected by their need or subconcious (sic) need to see or
experience sexual implications in every aspect of life and interaction they may
encounter. They are on their way to becoming dependant on objectifying a
person’s body or parts.’ This is acceptable reasoning in a screed, but
not an article purporting a basis in reality.
Objectification in itself is not bad- it’s part and parcel of the
mating game. If you overdo it, like anything, it’s bad- but Laura gives no
parameters for what constitutes addiction, so all we are left with is hysteria.
I won’t even touch the callow equation of sexuality with ‘morality’, nor
the rest of the piece, for it sounds too much like the reasoning of Joe
Lieberman, or that a mother gives to her fat wallflower daughter who’s
dateless for the prom- ‘But you’re the beautiful one, honey. REALLY!”
even though she knows mom’s full of shit.
In
the end Laura concludes with a sign of poor writing- the wringing of a cliché:
‘Just as the old saying goes “what they don’t know won’t hurt them”
this topic is proven to be dead wrong.’ Actually not, but since I got in
my jab at Lieberman I’ll say no more!
[An expurgated version of this article originally appeared on the 2/04 Hackwriters website.]
Return to Bylines