Now that Hemp is Finally Legal Can We Use it to Save Planet Earth & Why Did We Wait So Darn Long?

by Zvi Baranoff

Now that hemp is FINALLY being reintroduced to the American economy, I reflect on the DECADES of struggle that proceeded.

In the early 1980s we began an educational campaign about the vast social, environmental and economic opportunities and possibilities of hemp. We were generally met with disbelief or scorn. Jack Herrer's book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes was published in 1985, and is justifiably credited with launching the hemp movement,  but before publication much of the key information was being circulated in the form of leaflets.

Mainstream Environmental organizations were absolutely NOT interested, fearing any association to cannabis. Even the fringe, supposedly radical Greens responded similarly, shunning or purging cannabis advocates well into the 1990s. The perception was that hemp was a Trojan Horse to introduce marijuana and THAT was the Third Rail of American politics. Nobody but a fool touches the Third Rail.

The circles where hemp gained traction were twofold. There were the Rainbow Family/Dead Head/Hippie types that identified on a cultural level and started buying hemp twine to make bracelets and necklaces and other sorts of arty trinkets. These Hempsters helped spread the Gospel of Hemp with somewhat of a religious fervor. On the other end of the spectrum, some intelligently calculating Libertarian types, farmers and business interests became interested. Everyone else just looked askance.

It took decades for the awareness to work its way from the fringes to the political and cultural center.

Thirty plus years later, we now can test some of our theories concerning hemp and the Environment. With luck and determination we may be able to use hemp as a major tool to avoid environmental collapse.

It certainly would have been better if we had been given this opportunity decades ago. Unfortunately, there was too much political intransigence. We really, as a culture, should have been acting with the seriousness of a crisis situation back then because now everything is way more critical. Yet, we had the seeds of a better economy and a healthier environment all along. Finally, the seeds are now legal.

Unintended Consequences - How We Launched the Internet & the Greens in the 1980s Leading to the Election of Trump. I Am Truly Sorry

by Zvi Baranoff

This is how we helped launch the internet and the Greens in the USA. I probably should apologize for both.

Dana Beal came back from Europe and brought with him buttons and T-shirts and literature from the Alternative Liste für Demokratie und Umweltschutz (Alternative Ballot for Democracy and Environmental Protection, AL) and die Grünen. He introduced the Green Party to his circle of friends and loose network mostly in Manhattan and the Greater New York area. Soon interest grew. We began reaching out and networking the embryonic Green Movement in North America.

I was living in Philadelphia at the time. I met Stan Pokras in the early 1980s. He is an avid community networker and an early user of computers. He was one of the first nodes of what became a national computer network of Green activists.

We organized Green Conferences in multiple cities in the Mid Atlantic region of the USA to convene simultaneously and to communicate with each other through computers. We had meetings in Baltimore, Washington DC, Philadelphia and New York. We were linked by dial up service on clunky computers and able to type messages to each other. How exciting!

There was a contentious debate concerning the use of computer technology. Some argued that the computers could be used for design and layout of newsletters and such but not for communication! We plowed on, developing the networks anyway.

Ben Masel from Madison, Wisconsin bounced all over the country and was instrumental in finding folks with interest and skills for the task.  Ben Masel was producing the Zenger in Mad Town. Ben passed away in 2011 from cancer at the age of 56. The obituary in the Madison newspaper called him a “prominent marijuana activist and professional rabble rouser” and I am sure Ben would have been OK with that description.

I moved to Phoenix, AZ and was working with Lare Clark to produce Green Action Newspaper. We coordinated by computer with Stan Pokras and Nancy McClernan in Philadelphia to produce the Nationally distributed independent Green newspaper.

Meanwhile, the Committees of Correspondence (COC Greens) maintained a stand against the use of computers for communication. They also wanted nothing to do with cannabis. As the Green Movement staggered forward towards the idea of a Green Party this dynamic and these conflicts simmered.

In 1989 we marched a Giant Joint on the COC Green National Convention in Eugene, Oregon to demand a hearing of cannabis issues. Shortly afterwards, most of us decided to leave the Greens to their own process paralysis and we shifted our resources and energies elsewhere.

The Greens went on to adapt to the Internet, using it in a most unwholesome way. They also claimed the electoral mantle of Marijuana Legalization. They effectively tipped close elections to Republicans.

Every action has a reaction and usually chains of reaction. It is impossible to foresee all the consequences. Hindsight is 2020 so it is far easier to say what one should have done than it is to say what one should do going forward. We all do the best we can.

Halfway Between there is a Bookstore

by Zvi Baranoff

Cave Junction is a small town in rural Southern Oregon. It is just about exactly half way between San Francisco and Portland. San Francisco has City Lights. Portland has Powell's. Cave Junction has Pine Cone Books.

Otter McSweeney is the owner and manager of Pine Cone Books. He has a lot of books. Piles and piles of books. Wonderful books. Mostly new or gently used and some that have been used harder, showing signs of a rough life. Of course, every book deserves a home and each of them need to be somewhere until someone takes them home.

Otter has been building shelves and displays as he works his way through the piles and a sense of possible order is evolving at Pine Cone.

Otter has thousands of books and even knows where many of them are, so if you happen to be half way between San Francisco and Portland, stop by and say hello to Otter, and maybe help find good homes for some of the books.

Pine Cone Books is located at 139 Redwood Highway, in Cave Junction, Oregon. The bookstore is adjacent to Diggin’ Livin’ Food Store and Deli. Stop on there as well if you are in the neighborhood.

Political Correctness & Cultural Marxism - What Would Groucho Say?

These are the laws of my administration:
No one's allowed to smoke,
Or tell a dirty joke,
And whistling is forbidden.

by Zvi Baranoff

Politically Correct, Cultural Marxism, Deplatforming

These are terms that are being tossed about in the social dialogue and they tend to skew or derail important conversations. I have seen them popping up more and more. It may be mostly a matter of which tide pools I am floating or wading through in the vast ocean of cyberspace. It seems however that the terms have significantly oozed their way into common usage, as I have also seen them in published articles by fairly mainstream publications.

It is sometimes a question of when to confront disingenuous dialogue and when to ignore it. Part of that is whether engagement is useful as far as seeking understanding and shared agreement or if the dialogue leads to empowering and legitimizing a dishonest and disingenuous red herring argument that had ulterior motives. Generally speaking, I choose to ignore.

The Linguistic Twit in me however insists that words and terms have real meaning when used in one way. They are pure intellectual garbage when misused. They become right wing propaganda when used in a certain context.

Politically Correct

This term has a totally different meaning than how it has come to be used. The mangling of the term is something I noted decades ago.

For historical reference, the term comes out of Marxist intellectual and political circles. A Marxist study group may grapple with an issue to determine - from their ideological position - what is politically correct. Within this context they may debate where they stand on a local issue or on international matters.

In this context, for instance, the Communist Party in the USA was opposed to involvement in World War II as long as the Soviet Union was at peace with the Fascist regime in Germany and that was the position adopted by the membership. When war broke out on that front it became politically correct from their prospective to support the war effort and antiwar activists shifted their public position.  

After the war and throughout the Cold War period, ideological leftists in their small circles debated all sorts of issues and grappled with the search for politically correct positions. If one is working in a group or political party it makes sense to have everyone on the same page. They broke up into tiny groups recognized by the alphabet soup names identifying their political identity. Marxists were subdivided and subdivided again, denouncing each other over minor points of political correctness. There were a bunch of these groups back a few decades ago but they have mostly faded away or self destructed over their internal contradictions. (What about Albania?!?)

Politically correct? Paul Krassner published a poster and a bumper sticker in the Sixties that read “Fuck Communism!” At the time, no one quite knew in which way they were offended. Leftists like Communism. Conservatives did not like the word “fuck”. Now, I guess, Conservatives have changed their tune.

Cultural Marxism

What the hell is that supposed to mean? The first time I heard it I pictured in my mind a college dorm with a Che Guevara poster hanging on the wall. The term, however has some history. It is a way of attacking not just Marxists but anyone within their possible sphere of influence by painting them all with a broad brush. The term seems to be used today to describe anyone to the left of whomever used the term. As Marxist organizations are almost totally marginalized or irrelevant the political Right Wing seems all the more determined to toss that term about. Without a real Boogie Man to confront the Right Wing creates Straw Men.

Deplatforming

This seems to largely be a cyberspace issue although it also enters into a question of free speech on public campuses. The question of free speech is always a touchy matter. At what point does speech drift into action? Can we differentiate between shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater which is rightly a crime and shouting “Theater!” in a crowded fire which is the tradition of political activists from the stream where I tend to swim.

Yippie!

Abbie

I have NEVER been politically correct. I am a Groucho Marxist. To quote Groucho, “I would never join an organization that would have me as a member.” I have, however, spent most of my life in predominantly left wing circles. Sometimes I just had to wait for the politics to catch up with me and sometimes I just had to go my own way.

Back in the 1980s there were a series of large demonstrations in DC organized by broad coalitions to oppose various military intervention policies. We would pile into buses and join in with the vast crowds. They would march and chant: “The People! United! Will Never Be Defeated!” That was very popular. My friends and I chanted instead: “My uncle’s! A Diamond Cutter! He Mows the Lawn at Yankee Stadium!”

Trotskyist groups would show up at these sort of events and try to spin off part of the crowd, offering a seemingly purer and more radical position. We would shout at them “A Chicken In Every Pot! An Icepick for Every Trot!” not that we identified with Stalinists, but hey, that's funny and I don't care if it is not politically correct.

Back then, demonstrations used megaphones to encourage the droning chants of the gathered throngs. The antiwar chants focused on the idea that the money spent on the war efforts could better be spent elsewhere. “Money For Schools! Not for Wars!” was popular. This was also at the height of the Reagan years when the War on Drugs was broadly supported across the political spectrum. They chanted “Fight Drugs! Not wars!”

Sometimes the megaphones got passed around. Why anyone thought it was a good idea to hand me a megaphone I will never know. I looked at it. I looked at my friends. I held the megaphone to my mouth and proclaimed in the singsong pattern “Money for Drugs! Not for Wars!” This was greeted first with laughs and then others joined in. Then, the Peace Police marshalling the event crowded me from all sides and pried the microphone from my hands.

Smoke A Joint! Make A Point!

Those of us from the Marijuana Movement were always out of step, or as one might say politically incorrect. The hard left labeled us lumpenproletariat, as petty criminals and degenerates or not working class enough because we did not have factory jobs or something like that. A lot of them were anti pot. Some of them would publicly maintain that politically correct position but would come around to smoke our weed.

The moderate or non ideological Left - social democrats and liberals - insisted that pot was not a big deal, was a distraction, was not important… They would not stand up for our issue publicly and would publicly support War on Drugs orthodoxy. They would come around and smoke our weed or want to buy some from us on the sly.

Even when we helped break open deep contradictions in War on Drugs policy, we were politically shunned. Ronald Reagan went on national TV to show a bag of crack bought within sight of the White House! We exposed the cocaine trafficking aspect of the Contras. Overthrow published  a front page story with the title Ron Sells Crack to Fund the Contras! We called for drug reform but most of the political spectrum called for more War on Drugs. It has taken decades for the collective mindset to catch up.

Dialogue Across Ideological Lines

The Marijuana Movement built a broad coalition by ignoring much commonly held political perspectives and supposed wisdom. We focused on our issue and worked with anyone that would work with us. Leftists and liberals often shunned us but we found we could work in coalition with some conservatives and Libertarians on this issue.

We also would confront anyone that took regressive public stands on drug policy. As an example, I confronted Jesse Jackson during his “Up With Hope! Down With Dope!” speechifying orthodoxy of the War on Drugs days at a public event in our nation's capital, when he opened the floor to questions from the audience. He listened thoughtfully as I pointed out fallacies in his position. Other folks, I am quite sure, also approached him. Over time Jesse Jackson shifted his political position and he is now a solid ally in favor of drug law reform.

So, this does all factor in to a matter of platforms. Any time you have a public event, be it rally, demonstration or conference there are questions about who gets to speak and what positions are “politically correct” for that event. As a general rule of thumb, we allowed anyone that agreed with us about pot and helped promote the event an opportunity to address the crowds we garnered. At the same time, we strived to steer the cultural and political direction. One way we did this was by coupling Smoke In events with Rock Against Racism concerts.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

Over the last few year the question of Platform became more of an issue for the Marijuana movement on a couple of fronts. One issue involved sexist or sexualized advertising for cannabis products. This was a question for magazine editors as well as conference organizers. The second issue was what to do with Roger Stone, the Right Wing nutjob that happens to smoke pot and has been a very public supporter of legalization.

The question of sexualized advertising remains in flux but we have seen a general shift away from it, especially as more women moved into leadership roles on a political level, editorial and managerial roles within the publications and ownership roles in the industry.

Roger Stone encouraged a huge debate on multiple levels. He had spoken at events in the past. He was also drifting more and more into the uncharted political territory of conspiracy theory lunacy.

He was deplatformed on several levels. Some people refused to sell him weed. That was at the level of personal decision and not Movement or organization. He was also uninvited from a conference and has not been invited to any since. He is likely to be indicted in the Trump & Russia fiasco and even if he isn't indicted he is permanently tarred by his disreputable behavior and public rants. It was wise (politically correct?) to distance ourselves from him.

So, platforms need to be considered from multiple perspectives. One is to whom we offer a platform. Another is whom we allow a platform even when in disagreement on key issues. Finally, the question of who we attempt to deny any platform. Of course, free speech is a complicated matter and nothing is truly free.

When Fascists are marching in our streets, this question becomes most poignant and relevant. Should governments deny them permits to march? Should we counter protest? Should we drive them off the streets? Well, all I can answer to that is that it depends. Generally speaking, I have no problem with driving them off the streets.

The question of thugs and hooligans is different than politicians and public personalities. When and how to confront opposition spokespersons is a whole other can of worms. Should we heckle, challenge and/or confront? Again, the answer is not so simple.

Let A Thousand Pies Fly!

One tactical way to directly confront opposition spokespersons and reactionary politicians that was developed in the 1960s and fine tuned in the 1970s is the Political Pie Assassination. All sorts of political hacks have had pies thrown or shoved into their faces. Aron Kay made a political career with this tactic. Have Pie. Will Travel.

Feel free to call this impolite, rude, obnoxious or politically incorrect. I will point out that politicians hit with pies do not win elections. Some call this the Yippie Curse. The public just has a really hard time taking seriously anyone with whip cream on their face. A Bozo covered in sticky pie-ness makes a wonderful front page newspaper photo, I must say!

So, sometimes ridicule is the best way to take away someone's platform. Fuck them if they can't take a joke and joke them if they can't take a fuck.

As “Left” as I am, I don't much think that this whole political correctness concern is a big issue. We all know the difference between offense and assault. Hardly any of us are concerned about a dirty joke or an off colored remark. None of us are building Reeducation Camps to round up Straight White Men. Heck, a lot of my friends are all three of those.

I am far more concerned about the political drift to the right at this time than any perceived threat from the left of me.  I am concerned about those with the jackboots and tanks and armies and police at their disposal. I think that actual authoritarian governments are a far greater concern to my freedom than the possibility that some supposed Cultural Marxist will use authoritarian force or social coercion to make me let them use the bathroom or other such hot button public fake dangers.

There may be clowns to the left and there are certainly some dangerous jokers to the right. In between, it is Just Us. Me, I still like pot and would love a slice of pie, politically correct or not. What about you?

Bad Choices & Poor Planning - Now What?

by Zvi Baranoff

Another homeless encampment is wiped away by police intervention and bulldozers. The problems resulting from unauthorized camping are solved by elimination of the camp but the underlining issue of the unsheltered living amongst us is not resolved. Some say that the unsheltered should plan better to avoid finding themselves in such a predicament and surely those that say so are right.

I appreciate the importance of planning. Planning, of course, is a matter of individual, family and collective decisions. By collective, in this context, I mean both voluntary social and political groups and governmental.

Absolutely when “bad luck” falls upon us it is at least in part due to bad decisions and not preparing for possible downturns always makes matters worse.

From personal experience, I can certainly offer some observations. I have had some real significant bumps in my life and planning better or making different choices would likely have led to other results or smoother recovery.

We live in a highly stratified society. We each are better off in many ways than others. There almost always is someone further down the social ladder. We can all determine that we have done better for ourselves than someone else within our sight. We can all say that but for grace, our personal situation would be far worse. It could be worse is a true and stoic and honest and real assessment. Of course, it could be better too.

I have some clear advantages when it comes to this whole surviving thing. I was raised in a stable working class family. I received a pretty decent education at a basic level and am a High School graduate. I am of somewhat above average intelligence. I have been of relatively good health, so far, knock wood. My skin tone is on the lighter end of the spectrum.

When I was barely twenty I got a girl pregnant. In hindsight (40 plus years later) I will quite readily agree that I never should have been up in there. In hindsight, I should have worn a condom every time if I lacked the will power to simply leave that girl alone. In regards to the planning thing, she was using a diaphragm for birth control.

We were both very young but we tried to do the right thing and maybe it was right for a while. I do have a very nice, all grown up and self sufficient daughter.

Somewhere along that same time I discovered the value of cannabis on a personal level. Unfortunately, governmental planning had determined that cannabis was a social danger and possession and use was clearly against the law, even when the use may be quite beneficial. I used cannabis in spite of the prohibition but did not like the idea of supporting the criminal elements of the underground markets, so I planted a couple of seeds in my backyard garden. Clearly poor planning on my part. In retrospect, the criminalization of cannabis and cannabis users was also poor social planning.

In the 1980s I lived in Philadelphia. At the time, Philly had the dual problems of abandoned buildings in blighted neighborhoods and a growing population of unsheltered people. We believed that a logical solution to these interlocking problems was to bring the abandoned properties under a common or collective use. We chose crowbars as the primary tool to solve the housing problem and very publicly occupied buildings that became known as Squat Central. The systematic response involved battering rams and jackboots.

Politically speaking, it certainly would have been wise to have better planning. Better dynamics with community, a broad coalition, financial planning, lawyers… Yep, should have planned better.

Wiser social planning by those that had more political and economic clout, in retrospect, could have resulted in avoiding the conditions that led young utopians to step forward. We were trying to solve a problem that never needed to be in the first place. Philadelphia still has more empty houses than unsheltered citizens.

Anyway, my personal list of poor decisions or poor planning is somewhat extensive. At each of those junctions, those with less relative advantages would have had a much harder time, as difficult of a time that I was having. Each of those bumps that seem to happen in cycles of roughly a decade were horrendous for me, but I ain't dead yet. They say that what does not kill you will make you stronger and that is a very optimistic and uplifting thing to say but sometimes what does not kill you just grinds you down.

How far we might fall and if there is a pathway back up is a matter of choices but an awful lot of those choices happen in some other realm, above our pay level. The choices we individually can make are often a matter of bad or worse.

Becoming an alcoholic, for instance, is a really poor social choice but I certainly know how one may at times feel that whiskey is their only friend. Heroin is a terrible choice but for some it may be the best way they have found to limit or avoid pain. Crime or hunger certainly should not be the only options but for some it may seem that way.

To return from the abstract to the more concrete, I agree that we should all plan better. As individuals and as social activists, we need to be better organized. The problems of extreme inequality require collective action and strategic thinking. I believe that better collective decisions can be made that could resolve many of the worse aspects of extreme inequality through voluntary cooperative actions.

Absolutely, we should seek legal solutions. We should buy property and own it through land banks. We should work with government agencies to obtain proper permits, zoning, hygiene, safety, etc. We should help funnel those with needs such as drug withdrawal and treatment into agencies that can help with such problems. We should have facilities that can actually provide such help.

No one deserves a free ride is true enough. Neither should anyone be driven down so low that they feel that they have nowhere to go. Those are two sides of the same coin. We all need to plan better and in the ultimate sense, we are all in this together.

Personally, I have been a terrible planner and I certainly appreciate that some are better at that than others. I am all in favor of working with those that are good at planning and hope they will take on leadership roles. I recognize both my own strengths and weaknesses. I do what I can within the limits of my personal nature, the limits of the economic system, as well as my relative physical, mental and emotional well being. Of course, some days I am more capable and accomplish more. Some days I am just a mess.

Extreme poverty, the lack of shelter and social services, the existence of hunger and suffering, are complicated interwoven issues that need to be addressed through better planning. We have to start somewhere, and do something and we have to work with what is actually available and possible. Tents and blankets are better then nothing. Shacks are better then tents. Villages with sanitation and social services would serve community needs much more efficiently than haphazard temporary shelter.

We each have to make better choices. We all have to make better choices. That sounds like a plan.

How Do You Spell Banana & When Do I Get Paid?

by Zvi Baranoff

Sometimes I feel like the child that is asked to spell “banana” and proudly answers “bananana…”. The youth knows how to spell it but doesn't know when to stop.

It pretty much has all been said before, by better writers and deeper thinkers years or decades or centuries or millennium ago. There is still nothing new under the sun. For that mater, surely any wisdom that I can possibly pass on has already been passed. Likely I have already written down what I think about it all and what more needs to be said? Yet, somehow there must be more to it, I think as I “...nanana…” to infinity.

Now I am in my seventh decade of living on Planet Earth. I learn stuff all the time. Perhaps I am wiser than I was when I was young. I certainly have more experience and have been exposed to more stimulus. I have way more information available literally at my fingertips. Yet, many of the problems that we Earthlings face in this Century are the same that we faced in the last Century - the century in which I was born and lived most of my life. For that matter, some of the problems have been around since long before that. I have written about much of it over the years.

We do, however, have some special matters at hand that may not have occurred to very many a few decades ago that are now very serious front burner, attention demanding concerns that we just can no longer ignore or postpone. I have been pointing out the critical nature of our condition for what feels like forever.

It may be human nature to always put off until tomorrow what we can. There is a certain logic to that. If one puts something off long enough it may just resolve itself or someone else might get around to it. Sometimes, though, we all must face the consequences.

Since as long as I can remember I have been jumping up and down, shouting “Why?!?” and writing about solutions.

I started sending Letters to the Editor when I was in Middle School. I have been writing for a long time. I would get my letters published often. I have also had articles and esays published in various outlets. I was also involved at times on the publishing level, which means that I helped raise the money to print what I had to say. Now, in the internet age, I publish somewhat regularly through my blog and on social media so the cost to me is the time and effort. (Maybe it should be a book,some might say.) I just keep giving it all away.

There are always economic and financial matters that factor in to when and how we address every issue. Some gain from every action and will make a financial transaction out of every form of human interaction. Some people don't give anything away.

Rebellion may very well be a deep part of human nature but the system seems to find a way to monetize and capitalize on every impulse. If you doubt that, consider Jesus turning over the tables and the short span between his execution and the establishment of the Catholic Church. If that is too esoteric, consider Rock & Roll. Consider Che Guevara's image on advertising and T-shirts. Consider the White Bicycle Experiment, Shared Housing, Environmentalism, organic food, Tiny Houses, recycling and weed!

So, everyone is turning a buck on everything, and I am still writing for free!

Thinking and writing is a lot of hard work. It may not look like work, but nonetheless that is what it is. Work is a four letter word. It ends in “k” and it is best if you do it primarily for love. If you do it just for money you may be called a whore.

Assuming that we are not about to wash away the Capitalist System and replace it with a nonmonetary alternative sometime in the next few weeks, I need to monetize my writing. Everyone is selling something and that is all I have to sell. I may have been giving it away for decades, but it is time for this old whore to get paid.

So, much of what you will find between the covers of this book has already been published online, although there are corrections, improvements and further elaborations. Some of this is new. Some of the tales have never been told before. The primary difference is that I get paid, and why shouldn't I?

They will tell us that “it” is impossible or not practical until they can figure out how to turn a buck on it. Then, anything is possible. Even the publishing of this book. We cannot live on just love and air. As things are, we all need money. What's a writer to do?

Bananana...buy copies for your friends and buy the next book too when it comes out. We all have to do our share to keep the economy humming, because that's what we do here on Planet Earth.

Surely, it is human nature to keep doing things the same as we always have, until we start doing something else. As a planetary culture, for our collective survival, we best start doing all sorts of things differently in the near future than we have in the past.

I will keep writing.

Facebook Echoes - We Reap What We Sow

by Zvi Baranoff

Centuries ago philosopher monks pondered the question of the falling tree in the woods. If no one is there to observe the tree falling, did it make a sound? The modern equivalent to this riddle is at the heart of the Facebook Effect.

All sorts of political and social debates take place on various levels on Facebook designed formats. Lines are drawn and we choose up teams and we play the intellectual equivalent of dodgeball. If minds are changed or opinions are influenced through the process we do not know. If any of the dialogue that takes place within Facebook affects the physical world, I have my doubts.

I am beginning to draw some conclusions as to what it all does to me.

In the world we all grew up in people form organizations for specific purposes and the organizations require active participants in order to continue to exist. Whether we are speaking of a political party or a bridge club or a charitable or social group, someone needs to actually do SOMETHING in order for the group to continue.

Years ago I was invited to join a Polish Cultural organization. The requirements of membership were; to be invited by a member, to claim (not prove) some Polish heritage and to pay a small annual membership fee. The purpose of the organization was to skirt the draconian Blue Laws in effect at the time and operate a neighborhood bar on Sundays. Without a purpose no organization lasts long. This Cultural organization thrived.

Arguments, debates and disagreements may bubble up over projects, plans, philosophy, ideology, strategy or style. When enough people agree enough of the time, something actually happens. Whether we are talking about organizing a potluck supper or electing a candidate or erecting a monument or cleaning up the community center, ENOUGH actual people need to be involved in order to make SOMETHING happen.

In order to be a member of any group one needs to be in general agreement with the group. There needs to be certain common agreements, but certainly everyone will not agree about everything. So, there are lots of valid conflicts and reasons for folks to disagree with each other. If the general agreements break down, some may leave and find other ways to spend their time. The purpose of the group defines the membership and the members define the group.

Around the same time that I declined to join the Polish Drinking Club, I was actively involved in a community newspaper that published - at least, for a while - on a weekly basis. Those involved came from different cultural, social and economic backgrounds and from various political streams. We disagreed about much so there was much to argue over. But, questions of ideology or even style were only valid within the context of some real, practical questions.

Rent, printing costs, typesetting, layout, distribution…all of these are the matters that determine the viability of a newspaper. While the organization strived to operate on a basis of equality and consensus decision making, there were some kinks that became obvious before long.

At the weekly meetings there were plenty of people that wanted to make editorial decisions but at layout sessions only a handful would show up and as this would drag late into the night only a very few would stick it out to make sure the work got done. I suppose that if the newspaper had been serving a true and viable social need it would still exist. Perhaps we should have been selling beer on Sundays. Real life conditions are full of real life choices requiring exertion to facilitate and for better or worse result in actual consequences.

On Facebook, a “group” needs a group page and membership is determined by whomever opened the group page.

Debates that take place in this context serve perhaps the purpose of sharpening our wits or perhaps exposing ourselves to a perspective that we may not have been aware of. (See - I am trying to be positive.) The debates on Facebook however almost never are about actual projects in any sort of practical way. There are good reasons for this. The debates are taking place in cyberspace between people that likely do not actually know one another except through cyberspace. In fact, we may be unsure of the others’ real name, actual location and true intent.

I got caught up in one of the great cyber debates that left my head spinning and my spirit in turmoil. It all started over an article I posted on a Facebook group page. I was attacked, dragged, defamed and accused. After a while, I had to go back and reread the article posted to remind myself what it was about and why I posted it in the first place. The comments and responses were so divorced from the reference point that I began to distrust my own memories. That, in my opinion, was the intended purpose of most of the comments - to destroy the link to the actual world where ideas and words have meaning.

The Internet fosters a concept of ultra equality, where all ideas have equal value and hold equal weight. In practice, that means a surrender of verifiability. If everything is equal the random utterances of fools is the same as the thoughtful analysis of experts.

This is a problem that has, of course predated the Internet in Anarchist circles. We believe in equality and allowing everyone a voice. We promote consensus as a form of decision making. When put into practice we find the tendency of dilution rather than distillation and paralysis rather than process.

All things being equal, which of course they are not. So, we battle on in an imaginary world over control and dominance of uncertain territory. Maybe the real purpose is to keep the debates happening in realms that have no physical effects.

After a particularly exhausting exchange with some sort of cyber creature I communicated to a friend that I questioned the value of participation in these sorts of dialogues. She told me how important it was for “the thousands of people” that were seeing my input. Of course, I have no way of knowing if thousands or hundreds or tens or a handful of people actually see. I would have to assume that most that saw that particular thread would quickly get bored and scroll on to something else. I try to limit these interactions. I have noted the pattern. When I see it emerging I ask the question that always ends the debate. Agent provocateur or fool? One way or another, there is no value to continue the waste of my time!

The best way to measure if anyone is out there is by the responses. Much time on Facebook is a matter of nearly empty echoes. I have posted on matters that I considered important and have had zero response. Maybe the effect is on the subliminal level.

One time during the height of the short term Trade War sabre rattling with our neighbour to the north, a Canadian news agency ran an article about the tensions. I posted a somewhat tongue in check apology to Canada in the comments section, assuring Canadians that Americans loved them and were looking forward to better relations once we got rid of the current President whom most of us think is an idiot. Over 2000 clicks, mostly thumbs up and hearts and hundreds of favourable responses including nice emojis and emoticons. Oh, it warms my cyber heart to feel the cyber love.

I have a page on Facebook that I manage that has around 4000 followers. The page is called Bookworms and focuses on literature, arts, bookstores, libraries, censorship issues and whatever else I feel is appropriate. (https://www.facebook.com/HabitatBookworms/)

Some of my posts get lots of attention and some get none. As manager I get to see more data about who is seeing the posts. One might assume that with 4000 “followers” that around 4000 people would be seeing each post but evidently that would be untrue. Under each post Facebook will have a line showing how many they claim have seen the particular post and an offer to boost the number if I pay them! Some posts may have been seen by a couple of thousand but most are far fewer. Exactly how many is probably never knowable. Interestingly, I have had posts that I am told have been viewed by zero people that have been “liked” by one. I suppose that is based on some sort of advanced mathematical formula that I will never understand.  Anyway, why one post would be seen by a thousand and another post by fifty is a mystery to me but I am sure it makes sense to the algorithm and the computer mind. The relative importance of the post does not reflect the level of response. The biggest response results from the fluffiest of posts, usually consisting of a picture of a library. A cat picture with books is always a big hit!

We hope to educate and enlighten through our processes. We are aware that we need to be entertaining in order to gain and keep attention. However, I am unsure how much I contribute to our collective enlightenment. Sometimes I think I am just a dancing bear.  Sometimes I think I am only talking to myself. Facebook is unconcerned about the educational value of my input. Facebook just hopes that all the scrolling and clicking will lead to the sale of some eco-toaster or the purchase of a vacation getaway or the marketing of the social preferences of the those that take notice of the content that I have contributed to their marketing scheme.

I am, however, drawn in by the spectacle. I check to see if my posts are clicked on, if my comments are appreciated. It is akin to the old pinball machines with the flashing lights and ringing bells, grabbing and holding one's attention.

Years ago, when cell phones were just becoming popular, someone suggested that we give cell phones to all the crazy people that are walking around talking to themselves. With cell phones they would no longer appear to be crazy. Now we all have cell phones. Now we all appear to be talking to ourselves. Perhaps we have all gone crazy.

One effect that I am pretty sure of is that the more time I spend with scrolling on Facebook the less quality thinking and writing takes place. I get caught up in what is “trending” rather than in what is important. I debate fools over fine points of mindless abstractions.

I write on an internet connected tablet. I write best when my internet connection is disabled. Of course the internet helps with fact checking and research and keeping up with important world events but the notification of seeming action that consist of somebody “liking” something or “commenting “ on something is background noise that can be quite distracting.

On the other hand, when I add a new essay as a blog post, in order to get my writing out into the world I post links on Facebook. Is there really another option? This post will serve partially as a cyber social experiment. We can assume that the algorithm at work determines who gets to see the posts. Do you suppose that if “Facebook” is in the title of the article it will be treated better by the algorithm? Will using the word “Facebook” often in the text increase the cyber circulation? I am inclined to believe that it might but there is probably no real way to tell.