be careful what you ask for, you may get it and ask 'why?'

what happens when you've learned the routines, the dating ones, the protocols and suffer through endless episodes of the same repeated disappointment, tortured circular reflection only to discover that all along he wanted exactly what you wanted (deep down inside, not what you'd convinced yourself you wanted) theres a letdown in that he should want what you were half-hardheartedly offering but didnt, he wanted to give you exactly what you wanted - a relationship free of commitment, one free of compromise, one free of any obligation and restriction. but did he not want that from you? the circular logic kicks back into gear and turns its gaze back onto oneself - was I not good enough to expect or want that from?  after three long arduous (at points) months it has come right back to what you wanted from the beginning and cant stop asking 'why?'

I take (special) issue with the last point on economic 'democracy'. Is this not problematic to claim, Im not sure what liberty entails to you  but  it does go to the crux of the issue - who determines where the 'private-public' divide lies and how is the appropriation of what I would argue are public goods for the public good in anyway antithetical to 'liberty' while the unregulated concentration of wealth with the one percent is not. When Pfizer robs indigenous peoples of the rights to their medicinal plants by 'patenting' and deeming them 'their' property to sell exclusively why is that not contestable as a loss of liberty? In fact the true arbiters of free market fundamentalism (the Chicago school) readily embraced brutally repressive authoritarian regime (i.e., Chile) to exert their ideas in an environment free of opposition. I would argue truly (unregulated) free markets and (true) democracy are (ultimately) antithetical as the concentration of wealth leads to the concentration of power.   

Love in a time of Madness (pt. 1 Intimations on late late capitalism and its discontents

Love as a construct that is historically, politically, economically and socially determined raises interesting questions about the possibilities of what love can be and is capable of being. And by love I mean 'romantic' entailing some level of sexual intimacy but also 'sisterly/familial' love. Are the narrow definitions attributed in the mass media and reinforced in our collective imagination really what love is about? Is love merely something that happens between two people of the same or opposite gender that is followed by a state sanctioning ceremony and then children followed by death (not necessarily in that order). What purpose does love serve in orienting us towards a particular socioeconomic order and conforming to the marketing whims and preferences of commercial interests and if so how 'real' is this love and to what degree is this love reified to serve these whims and interests? Is love really as hegemonically produced and consumed by the masses or is there hope for creating alternative visions of loving relationships than can span across these narrowly defined categories escaping state sanctioning? Is a multiplicity of options accessible and achievable? What constitutes love today?

Loves lost... my own private anxiety register. so here we are again, trying to make sense of the irrational actions of a politician [enter any male name here] caught up in sex scandal. after DSK or post-DSK-Sofitel or maybe 'in the post-DSK era' its hard to imagine this sort of thing happening and in such a crude and obviously stupid way.... and yet every man deep down inside knows sexual desire/want can trump fear or loss ... any day. love/sex/ejaculation/anticipation intertwined with power has long been the opium and forbidden pleasure of a politico or two and we all know and feel it (to varying degrees) it feels so right and natural that all risks must or can or will be endured begging incredulity of a supposedly shocked public. honestly did everything else really not matter? recklessness is the nom-de-guerre in such endeavors (and stupidity if you're caught, brilliance if you're not).

I feel for the collateral damage of those caught in the aftermath, the spouse, the chief of staff/staff, children - loyalties are tested ("I mean did you really think this would not destroy 'us' personally, professionally ,etc??") Anyhow it provides a lovely preface

Oh to be a Spanish teenager

http://www.lagasta.com/casey-spooner-tareq/

Chuck Close at the Corocoran

http://vimeo.com/13029174

Dan Savage on making relationships work...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ObrFwjesno

That thin line between compromise and acceptance... whats a legitimate grievance, a fatal flaw in my perception or their persona. that is the question, no?