
Big gay love

Clichéd truisms

Big gay love

Clichéd truisms
Take a moment to indulge in this brilliant zine created by Catherine Elms (University of Nottingham’s Women’s Network). It’s a little different to your average zine in that it isn’t front-to-back angry-lesbian rants (please don’t take too much offence, I really do enjoy those rants!). Rather, Artemis is a zine – created through the portal of the Women’s Network at the Nottingham Uni – that acts as a podium of female expression within an educational environment.
It’s pretty cool. Plus, I feature in the Winter ’09 Issue:
Street urchins and rats and warts and bombs and concrete and slime and damp newspaper and phones-on-loudspeaker and chips and long drinks on oak tables and Brixton and Astoria and please-mind-the-gap and parks and gum and received pronunciation and “sorry” and “cheers mate” and “can you spare some change, love?” and “two bunches for a pound” and “change here for the Piccadilly line” and cracks and puddles and Church and Synagogue and Mosque and Basilica and Mandir and Kingdom Hall and Mary Poppins and fitted caps and Hoxton Grill and strong tea and red buses (on diversion) and blue oyster and black cabs and green light and yellow line and Greenwich Meridian and benches and congestion charge and Angel and Serpentine and Groucho and Radio 1 and XFM and Big Issue and roasted chesnuts and Blitz and mockney and Carnival and irrepressible youth and butcher and baker and candlestick maker.
The other night, at Lily Allen’s last gig of her current album It’s Not Me, It’s You, I was ecstatic to see her mixing it up with some old London-scene favourites; mid-show, East London rapper Professor Green burst on to the stage to accompany Lily in a wildly impressive rendition of S.O.S Band’s 1983 no.2 hit ‘Just be good to me’.
I was born and raised in Ladbroke Grove, and being the child of popular teenage parents our flat was brimming with 18 and 19 year-olds smoking hash and passing me around for cuddles. My mother and father, being young and hip at the time, would have house parties most weekends. London scenesters would pour in through the front door, and into the kitchen to mix the rum and coke, talking about who did what at the rave over at Tony’s house the night before. Slowly, they’d make it into the living room (because all house cotches take place in the living room) to discover me watching Loony Toons or playing with my lego. Usually, my mum’s best friend from school, Annabelle, would whisk me away and I would remain on her hip for the rest of the evening. Or some new guy would take a liking to me (in a sweet way) and sit me on his lap whilst passing round the wacky baccy to his mates. I was the party piece, one might say. Everyone loved when Leah would sit on their lap and giggle, and I think I loved it too. It was probably the only time in my life that I ever really fit in somewhere – I felt secure, even if I was surrounded by pot-smoking layabouts.
So there I was, cosied up on some teenager’s lap, submerged in smoke and the casual exhange of my parents’ friends. My mother would hit play on the sound system, not really caring what came out of the speakers – one particular song I can remember being played, and it all came flooding back to me when Lily Allen and Professor Green performed a live cover of it this week, was ‘Just be good to me’. Standing in the stalls of Brixton Academy, watching these 20-something London hipsters (not unlike my mother and father way back when), I was transported back to those house parties when I was first introduced to music. Not nursery rhymes on Sesame Street or screeching jingles on Nickelodeon. But, real music – electrofunk, jungle, grime, ragga, ska, horror punk, jazz fusion, dub house, breakbeat, and livetronica.
I think it’s remarkable how songs that you might have listened to over and over again can all of a sudden sound as new, fresh and intoxicating the first time you heard them.
Check out this article in The Vancouver Sun :
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=8bde2bee-2581-4576-9da5-409cbe6de89b
A snippet of life around the boardwalks of Wildwood, New Jersey (1992). Ignore your initial disdain for the coarseness these young street urchins exhibit – a very real beauty and innocence is obscured by the general blandness of the nineties. The more you watch, the more you want to watch….and the more you want for the filming to never end.
Leitman does something very special in this documentary – she shines a light on the young and the ordinary. They represent the monotony of those ‘tween years of growing up. There are no frills or scintillating moments of revelation. What you see is most certainly what you get: Life as a misfit. Life as a teenager. Life smack bang in the middle of popular culture. Life in just another town in the US of A. Life before actual life.
So do look closely. For these are gentle antelopes that roam the boardwalks of Morey’s Piers Amusement Park, stuck in the junk yard of our MTV generation.
Fear not, dear viewer, these creatures do not bite. It is just the attire that offends.
Video mapping projections at a secret festival in the North East of England. The theme and logo of the party was: the heart. It’s just cool.
I recently stumbled across some poems written by London-based, indie pop artist Kate Nash. They’re not half bad if you ask me. In fact, they’re quite brassy – I like to think of them as little nuggets of our gritty London charm.


Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art. Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world—in order to set up a shadow world of “meanings.”

Brilliant Modest Mouse music video, King Rat, directed by the late Heath Ledger.

I’m in awe of the safe-sex ad campaign – Condom Essential Wear – that appears on MySpace at the moment, courtesy of the NHS: “Without a condom, he’s just a prick.” It is one the most candid slogans I have seen in a long while, and its coarseness is quite welcome. In fact, I think we should adopt this format to sell everything:
Without a towel, you’re just damp..
Without shoes, you just look smaller..
Without trousers, you just look dangerous..
Without legs, you’re just sitting..
Without plastic surgery, you’ll die alone..
Without religion, you’re just a dirty homo..
..are just a few examples.

All amusement aside, there is a core issue which we can’t just smirk at; sexually transmitted infections are yucky, so whether it’s a standard male condom, an IUD, an IUS, the pill, a patch, a diaphragm, a Femidom, a NuvaRing, a FemCap, or a “Today Sponge”, just wear it. Then the rest is just noise.
Go to Planned Parenthood for some fabulous descriptions and diagrams, AND take a quick stroll over to your local contraception clinic or GP for FREE condoms etc.

http://www.fishoutofwaterfilm.com/
http://fishoutofwaterblog.blogspot.com/

Fish Out of Water team > Katy Haggis, Kristen Kaza, Ky Dickens, Fawzia Mirza. Photo by Amanda Clifford
The Negro Speaks of Rivers
I’ve known rivers:
I’ve known rivers ancient as the world and older than the flow
of human blood in human veins.
My soul has grown deep like the rivers.
I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young.
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln went
down to New Orleans, and I’ve seen its muddy bosom turn
all golden in the sunset.
I’ve known rivers:
Ancient, dusky rivers.
My soul has grown deep like the rivers.
Langston Hughes.
Throughout the poem, “The Negro Speaks of Rivers”, the theme of roots is essential to our understanding as this gives rise to the ultimate meaning of the poem, even if the word ‘root’ is not used in the text. The details summon strong imagery all relating to veins, rivers, and the roots of trees, giving the reader a sense of timelessness. Hughes demonstrates the value of the symbiotic relationship of tree roots and those in the historical and familial sense. Thus it becomes clear that Hughes is addressing a theme much larger than rivers or human veins – it is a statement about African-American history, and in a much larger sense, the human race.
Early in the poem images of the canals [that run throughout the human body] as well as images of rivers that meander and are shaped like veins form our understanding that this poem is about more than blood or water – it is about roots and circuits. Like plants or rivers, roots run deep and twist irregularly through the medium in which they are planted. The ancient rivers the Hughes talks of are like the blood in veins or the roots under trees; they provide nourishment enough to sustain life. This is later demonstrated when Hughes discusses early civilisations that thrived off of the river system, thus the theme of ‘roots’ has a dual meaning. ‘My soul has grown deep like the rivers’: this stand-alone sentence prefaces the issues that develop in the subsequent lines and makes the reader distinguish rivers from the long probing roots of a tree or human veins. Rather, rivers are akin to the soul and are constant. When Hughes says that his soul is ‘deep’ like the rivers, he is saying that there is an organic connection with the earth on which he thrives and can understand.
The ‘I’ in the third section of the poem is meant to represent hundreds of thousands of voices from the past to the present. New Orleans and Mississippi are locations of particular consequence to African-American history. The river symbolises the linkage of all human life from the earliest time to the present. He continues, naming rivers that represent history of Western culture. ‘Euphrates to the Mississippi’: the history of mankind from Biblical times to the period of the American Civil War is being submitted for inspection as the Euphrates is considered the cradle of Western civilisation.
The rivers bear centuries of history, they currently drown in the burden of the present, and they will continue to do so far into the future. Nevertheless they are a positive force, they can absorb, they can renew, they grow wider and longer through knowledge and patience. Perhaps what Hughes is trying to say is that like the rivers he speaks of, the poem heralds the mystic union of humankind.
Ultimately, the poet recognises that he is also a child of the cosmos, and he is linked with all races and creeds for all of time. The pace of this poem plods along slowly, sometimes frustratingly; Hughes uses the repetition of ‘I’ to denote both the stifling feeling of drudgery and the beauty of our existence in being able to say ‘I’. In this poem, they walk hand in hand, suffused with the image of death, and simultaneously, deathlessness. What’s more, we could describe the pace of the poem in geological terms; it meanders gently like the rivers it speaks of. It is steady and it is unyielding to human intrusion. For if you sit and watch a river, it appears quite calm on the surface, however underneath, amid the divergent currents and rocky sediment, there is turmoil. In this poem, Hughes understands that the surface can be enough for some, but through a confident and judicious narrative, he exposes the boulders and debris for the conscious to salvage.

Stephen James Wilkinson: quirk, sweetheart, produces magic (via the fm waves of course), and he’s a Brit. Actually, asides from all of that, he’s just great.

His musical pseudonym is Bibio. I’m not entirely sure why though, I did some research and according to the Latin-English dictionary a bibio is a small insect generated in wine. It’s probably rather fitting as the music produced on his new album, Ambivalence Avenue, can be rather enigmatic at times. Electronically transmogrified guitar melodies and scintillating synthesizers that dull your senses are delicately woven into every song, each one more intoxicating than the last. It’s gluey, gooey, and gummy. It’s sticky and surly and drizzled in sultry. It’s the kind of perfection that instead of gobbling it up in an impulsive scramble, you stand very still, transfixed almost, savouring every coruscating sound wave. Because that’s what this album does. It sparkles. It makes you smile.
What stands out on this album is how apt the album title is; you’ll notice that the tunes transition to different musical genres, they morph and change tempo but the mood remains consistent throughout: ambivalent to its last beat.

Pitchfork gave Ambivalence Avenue an 8.3!
Check out this link to Bibio’s space on Warp Records’ web page – you won’t regret it.
http://warp.net/records/bibio/ambivalence-avenue-out-now-plant-a-tree-in-the-bibio-forest
My tree:
http://warp.net/records/bibio/?id=678
A short film about Jack and Jill.
I envy paranoids; they actually feel people are paying attention to them.

Sitting on the desk I usually use at the library was this message to me. As if dropped down from v-hole heaven (I think the afterlife will sort of be like being in Valhalla…dominated by cool and yummy women), this book was smack in the middle of my laptop space. I hadn’t really thought about it before, a whole book about the bojine…. excellent.
I shall borrow this from the library today, and when I finish reading it I’m quite sure it will be going up on the Chumscrubber blog book list. So watch this space.

What one can ascertain from Reborn: Journals and Notebooks, 1947-1963, is that Susan Sontag‘s weariness runs ever-deeply, as found in most all of her writing – coloured with both distaste and uncertainty about the texture and direction of her own life. So, she was narcissistic at best? Of course. Just one of the many reasons I am so drawn to her writing. But, more than that, Sontag was a fascinating woman; a woman whose words blaze with such precise and incandescent insight, the sparks of intellect jerk and spit at you as if from a smouldering fire, stinging you with the sharp truths of your existence. From time to time, I will pick up one of her books, pull it close to my chest, and embrace it so tightly as if I were able to squeeze out all the words so that they would drip from the pages and percolate my skin, finally inhabiting my body – and only then would I be able to articulate the musings I chew on with such discomposure.
In a third-person account of her life written in 1958 (shortly before her 25th birthday) Sontag complains about the “tense careerism of the academic world, the talkativeness of it. [She] felt sick of talk, of books, of intellectual industry, of the inhibited gate of the professor.” This passage stands out by contrast with the rest of her journal – filled with lists of books to buy, words to learn, ideas to analyse. The final lines of Reborn refer to “the intellectual ecstasy I’ve had access to since early childhood…Intellectual ‘wanting’ like sexual wanting.”
What I have inferred from Sontag’s writing (so far) is that passion is not always good for you. This sounds like quite a rash and contemptible statement to make, I realise. Of course passion is good for you! Yes, I am quite aware that passion is the ‘zest of life’. In fact, I would happily defend that argument under most circumstances. However, in this case, I would argue that passion can be fatal, but in the most charming and quixotic sense. The ‘zest’ that Sontag lived, seemed more acerbic than piquant at times, leaving one with an uneasy feeling, quite difficult to locate. Another entry mentions Sontag’s realisation that reading could be an addiction: “I was like an alcoholic who nevertheless experiences a bad hangover after each binge. After an hour or two browsing in a bookstore, I felt numb, restless, depressed. But I didn’t know why. And I couldn’t keep away from the stuff.” She would go on benders, reading in a “greedy way” until she passed out – keeping “several books beside the bed at night, in order to fall asleep.”
The desire to become a writer is there, I know this much. Though, I know it will be fighting for a long while to get out. I now realise that I stand on a similar brink of the sudden interruption of continuity around which Sontag lingered for so long, that involves overcoming the temptations all around: academic ambition, the distraction of book shops, the pleasure of sitting in front of a theatre screen and its secondhand dreams.
All of this I know, yet, all of this I am not ready to detach from. I fear I may never leave.
“To write,” notes Sontag in 1961, “you have to allow yourself to be the person you don’t want to be (of all the people you are).” In other words, self-creation, like self-consciousness, leads to all sorts of paradoxes. A thought like this lets me close on a note of impatient enthusiasm that I can scarcely bare to endure.
“Great writers are either husbands or lovers. Some writers supply the solid virtues of a husband: reliability, intelligibility, generosity, decency. There are other writers in whom one prizes the gifts of a lover, gifts of temperament rather than of moral goodness. Notoriously, women tolerate qualities in a lover—moodiness, selfishness, unreliability, brutality—that they would never countenance in a husband, in return for excitement, an infusion of intense feeling. In the same way, readers put up with unintelligibility, obsessiveness, painful truths, lies, bad grammar — if, in compensation, the writers allows them to savour rare emotions and dangerous sensations. And, as in life, so in art both are necessary, husbands and lovers. It’s a great pity when one is forced to choose between them.”
This seems more complex, and less droll, than it did on first reading.

I think I’m a bit impetuous sometimes. Perhaps a little arbitrary, too.
A writer, I think, is someone who pays attention to the world. That means trying to understand, take in, connect with, what wickedness human beings are capable of; and not be corrupted – made cynical, superficial – by this understanding.
Literature can tell us what the world is like.
Literature can give us standards and pass on deep knowledge, incarnated in language, in narrative.
Literature can train, and exercise, our ability to weep for those who are not us or ours.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot discriminate between people on the basis of race, gender, or religion. This much is true. Democratic Majority vote doesn’t matter. It is impossible to violate the US Consitution with some 52% Democratic Majority vote. Right? Any such majority vote is invalid, null, and void. Any such majority voting a contitutional amendment is invalid, null, and void. California’s Prop-8 is: Invalid. Null. Void.
Civil law granting civil marriage licenses cannot examine the races or marriage applicants when deciding whether to grant or deny such civil licenses. The constitution mandates equal treatment under the law. If the law grants civil marriage to a white couple, then it has no valid means to deny an otherwise identical inter-racial couple that identical civil marriage. Right?
Civil law granting civil marriage licenses cannot examine the religions of marriage applicants when deciding whether to grant or deny such civil licenses. The constitution mandates equal treatment under the law. If the law grants civil marriage to a Christian couple, then it has no valid means to deny an otherwise identical inter-faith couple that identical civil marriage. Right?

It is unconstituional for the law to discriminate on the basis of race, it is unconstituional for the law to discriminate on the basis of gender, it is unconstitutional for the law to discriminate on the basis of religion.
The religious right is systematically trying to amend the Constituion to support their narrow-minded Christian beliefs, neglecting to remember America is not a Christian nation (what was the point of leaving England?). Regardless of any of our religious beliefs, it is not right to exclude a minority based on their lifestyles. It wasn’t right when women were treated as lesser citizens as men. It wasn’t right when black people were treated as lesser citizens than whites. And it is no right to treat the LGBT community as lesser citizens than heterosexuals.

Prop-8 is unconstitutional, arguably not due to separation of Church and State. In the early ’90s, the state of Colorado passed Amendment 2 which would have prohibited the passing of laws protecting rights based on sexual orientation. The Amendment was found to be unconstitutional by the Colorado State court, and the decision was upheld by the State and, eventually, by the US Supreme Courts.
The reasoning behind the decision was that the constitution cannot discriminate against a “protected class” of people, denying them equal protection under the law simple because the majority may hold “animus” and “hatred” toward them.

The younger generation public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of equal civil rights for the LGBT community. Opposition is generally more common, however not limited to, in the older, more “traditional” generations. The simple fact is that no force on earth can stand against a generational shift.
Inter-racial marriage opponents and same-sex marriage opponents can say “over my dead body”, and when they that that, they are wrong. Sooner or later, our generation will defeat this bigotry, even if we have to bury the older generation to do it.

Proposition-8 is motivated by archaic religious dogma, funded by meddlesome out-of-state groups trying to legalise theocracy. There is no rational arument for supporting this, and it makes me so sad to think of those 20-something thousand same-sex couples, whose marriages that were made legal in early 2008, are now deemed null and void. Prop-8, and all other international equivalents, has been spurred on by fundamentalist hatred and bigotry towards the LGBT community. It has festered in the minds of men like James Dobson and Timothy LaHaye, and their repugnant, judgemental, hateful fundamentalist brand of Christianity. It has got to stop.

My rage is slowly transforming, though. It started as a rock in my stomach. Then a fire in my heart. Yesterday, it was a fog in my mind. What supporters of the LGBT community shouldn’t feel is too disheartened. 67% of people who voted NO on Prop-8 were under 30, and the ballot only passed on a 52% majority. Change is coming.

Melissa Etheridge wrote in a recent article,
“Gay people are born every day. You’ll never legislate that away.”

When The Boomtown Rats slur “I don’t like Mondays…”, I scream “TELL ME WHY??” Because, to be perfectly honest with you, I love Mondays. I live for Mondays. Strange as it sounds, Mondays are the best day of the week because the new podcast of This American Life is available for download. The crew at WBEZ Chicago have actually stumbled upon a way of making people want to get out of bed, turn their laptop on for iTunes (to update their This American Life podcast collection), frantically get dressed, make an unflattering dash for the bus (or train) just so that they can cosy up on some pulverous public transport seat, all in an effort to plug in their earphones and spin their iPod wheel to the latest episode of This American Life. It’s genius. I loathe public transport, but everyone disappears around me when I’m listening to This American Life. Because of course, nothing else matters in that moment. Nothing else matters…until it does. Because then, He speaks.
This American Life, the public radio show began in 1995 – founded on the belief that everyone has a story to tell. That idea seemed supremely hopeful in those days. It flattered the national pride in diversity while seeming to liberate various tense ideological discussions from identity politics. Stories, after all, aren’t static box-checking matters of race and ethnicity. They’re dynamic and individualistic, potentially bankable creations. But stories can also be true or false, and they demand heroes and villains. Along both of these axes, stories — unlike poems — can be actionable. As people have felt empowered to peddle their stories, lawsuits and scandals have followed. Perhaps a graver consequence of the belief that everyone has a story, though, is the slow-dawning realisation that the belief is itself a story. Anyone who has ever ridden a bus or been to a dinner party knows that many, many people have no stories. Possibly almost no one has a bona fide story, though most have arguments to make, consolations to offer and widgets to sell.
The front man for This American Life — the audio and now televised version — is Ira Glass. On his radio show Mr. Glass has figured out that the story shortage in America is serious, and he fills the narrative reserves out of his own pocket more often than anyone admits. Specifically he supplies “transitions” in the stories that are nominally told by his guests. He talks telegraphically, using short phrases and confident deep breaths. He also has a way of seeming to swallow while he talks that’s endearing. Listeners find Mr. Glass seductive in spite of his swallowed delivery. Which is probably because he makes liberal use of free, indirect discourse – the standard public radio trick of simulated empathy: it’s the version of the third person that stays deep inside the head of the subject. (A crude example: “Bethany went outside. Was it raining?”) For Mr. Glass it’s a way to take the wheel of stories when it’s clear that the everyman he’s recruited isn’t saying exactly what the producers want him to.

So anyway, Mondays.
Monday, Monday, Monday. If I can stop myself from listening in the morning (more than once it has caused me to be late for school, and now work), then I join my friend and fellow quirkyalone Emy for dinner – we gather around the laptop with bated breath, as our grandparents and great-grandparents once huddled ’round the wireless to listen to The Archers or Churchill’s fireside chats.
We laugh. We cry. We live and we learn.
My best friend Lucy, a lovely misanthrope, retreats to her usual scepticism of anything and everything American when I try to persuade her to listen. But I don’t care: for thousands of Americans in voluntary exile, and Brits wanting to believe that America can produce more than Hannah Montana, This American Life is an essential lifeline to hope and faith in humankind. A totally chimerical home, where everyone is like us: humanistic, bookish, self-deprecating, and above all, free-thinking.
In this anxiety-filled election year, this last facet of TAL is most important. Having become comfortable when Bill Clinton was still president and gasoline was less than a dollar a gallon, I am painfully aware that my conception of America is old-fashioned for a young person, even mythic: it has changed a great deal since Billy boy left the fold, and of course, not really for the better. I’d like to believe that Barack Obama will lead the United States of Whatever into a new era of change, but often – reading the headlines, watching the news – I feel pessimistic. I find it hard to believe that Yes, We Can.
But when I listen to This American Life, oh, I believe.
“Each week,” quoth Ira Glass, the iconic host of TAL in his monotone and nasal deific voice, enunciates, “we choose a theme, and we bring you several stories on that theme.” Despite the voice and the black-framed glasses he sports (which are bigger than his face), Ira somehow manages to be the coolest and most attractive American man ever, because he is the bringer of this amazing, romantic, liberal reverie.
The themes brought to us by Ira are broad – “The truth will out”, ”Quiz shows”, “Twenty-four hours in a Chicago diner”, “Something for nothing”. But the messages are consistent. Almost every narrative is somehow redemptive: sometimes they’re terribly sad, but at the end of each episode the listener is almost always filled with a sense of hope and faith that many Americans are, at the end of the day, good and kind and self-deprecating people. Much like us Brits. The editing is perspicaciously done – the most gut wrenching recent story, of a Muslim-American family harshly rejected by their local community following 9/11 was buttressed, as the weepiest ones always are, with hilarity: a sharp anecdote from writer Shalom Auslander about his comical efforts to write ad copy to flog American values to the Arab World. “I realised,” he says of his assignment, “that if you switched ‘freedom and democracy’ for ‘cool and refreshing’, it was pretty much the same strategy as the one I’d been given for selling soda to African-American kids.” I was so overwhelmed by the juxtaposition of comedy and tragedy that I had to lie down for a few minutes to recover.
Sometimes I wish that there was a new episode of This American Life every day, but I don’t think I could quite handle the emotional roller coaster – it usually takes me a week to recover my cynicism before Monday rolls around again, and Emy and I start laughing, crying, living and learning again, and I find myself thinking: is this real? Can you really find this level of comedy and honesty… wrapped in acceptance? It’s pure schmaltz, but it’s intellectual schmaltz – the range of contributors include a formidable cast of well-known writers and broadcasters (David Sedaris, Shalom Auslander, Heather O’Neill, Chuck Klosterman, Dan Savage, David Rakoff, and the list goes on) – and thus for an hour a week I’m not ashamed to put aside all of this political grappling, and instead indulge in the fantasy that America really is a land of hope, opportunity, and unparalleled charm. I know you want to hurl huge rocks at my head right now. I do too. But maybe, just maybe, we should try with all of our muster to grant a clean slate and give a standing ovation to the sheer beauty, brilliance, and bravado of This American Life. Who are we to keep them confined to the box they’re in right now? If we don’t give this irreverent humour and intellect a chance, then we might as well get in the box ourselves.
Some say it’s “so typical” that the show is based solely around the ordinary American – what about the ordinary everyone? Every where? Perhaps it should appeal to the global audience and just call itself ‘This Life’. I mean, it makes sense. Ultimately, what they are trying to show is that we’re all in ‘This’ together, that we’re all interconnected somehow – even though we can miss the point occasionally – that sometimes if we’re lucky enough,we see each other. But are we all really ready to endeavour the journey into our own minds – it can be a truly perilous realm. At least, when you think about it.
Maybe Ira Glass and the ordinary American are just the beginning stages of something much bigger, much brighter, and much better – for all of us. Let’s rid ourselves of ‘anti’ and start becoming more ‘pro’. Let’s say all the things we never said. Let us finally set aside childish differences. So what if it’s This American Life? We should just swallow our contempt for American’s over-sentimentality and their quest for the American Dream for the 50-something minutes of the podcast, and start looking forward to This Life.
For now, we can listen, learn, and hope that an Ira Glass is born on every continent – when we will finally be able to catch him on our frequency.

To download the free podcast, follow the link!