Fuck Yeah America @ The LAP Gallery

The prospect of going all the way to Waltham for an art show was frankly not that appealing to me. Going to any place where the T stop is a commuter rail station doesn't inspire confidence. My experience at LAP Gallery threw that position into question.

LAP Gallery is located on Moody Street in Waltham, a semi-hip enclave of Greater Boston's outer limits, fully equipped with a brew pub, small book store, an independent movie theater, and a waterfall. A pretty broad cross section of people walked up and down the drag, ranging from businessman to aging scenester to possibly mentally ill. It feels like an alright community, but also one where a robbery or two wouldn't be totally out of place.

The gallery itself is incredibly welcoming. Initially the entrance space and lobby to art studios upstairs, it was converted by proprietors Elliot Anderson and Pat Falco into a really well presented show space. It's super-sleek interior rivals any NYC gallery, and the pieces on display were nothing to scoff at, either.

Immediately upon entering the Fuck Yeah America exhibit, two unrelated things greeted me. One: a stencil and spray paint American flag rendered in Legos by Dave Tolmie and the welcoming face of co-founder Pat Falco. Pat was immediately friendly to new faces, jumping on the chance to talk about artists featured in the show. There wasn't a bad piece in the room. There were a number of standouts.


Among them was New York artist Jes Hughes' American Homestead: Summer, a really well composed mixed media piece primarily based in watercolor and letterpress, and Molly Kennedy's uberweird MEEE! (shown), a wax and plaster sculpture of what appears to be a stripped chicken with Teddy Roosevelt's head.

Dan Lambert's The Throats of 44 Men, a series of 44 pieces of white paper featuring a shadowed area where the throats are visible from American Presidential portraits was one of the more impressive parts of the show. It's incredibly simplistic, but really interesting. If I had two hundred seventy five spare dollars (totally a steal), I'd probably have this piece in my living room right now.

Throughout, the show is fantastic. The artists were personable and the venue is great. Locally brewed beer was handed out for free, apparently as usual at LAP's openings, and the contents will fuel your party with conversation pieces for the whole ride home.

LAP Gallery is located at 289 Moody St., Waltham, MA
Fuck Yeah America remains open until July 9. Gallery is open Wed-Sat from 12-6
Parking available nearby
Commuter Rail stop: Waltham (Fitchburg Line)

Spring in Jamaica Plain - 1st Thursdays!

It's gorgeous outside, and Jamaica Plain took advantage. Residents and visitors strolled the neighborhood's Centre/South district to check out local galleries, get some (free) booze here and there, catch a minimum of three bands performing with instruments unknown to anyone but Europhiles and carnival lovers, and maybe even buy something.

Generally speaking, the local marketing brainchild of Centre/South Main Streets didn't disappoint.

As per usual, Hallway Gallery stood out in a crowd. Gallery owner Brent Refsland has an excellent eye for the local and interesting, and the current collection may have been the best yet. P.M. Allen managed to make illustrations of local scenery made on an iPhone significantly better than it sounds when I say it out loud, presenting a really present and modern collection. Melanie Blood's almost skeletal creations were eerie and beautiful. P.M. Allen's pieces were both old and new in style, but consistent in their high quality.

The real show stealer was Aaron North. With what appeared to be pens, paints, and paper melded with wood and wheat paste, Mr. North produced a number of social scenes among Anthropomorphs that is worth the trip to the neighborhood no matter where you are in town. (And with $1 oyster Thursdays back at VeeVee, you should probably come anyways).

Aviary was also looking good. Danielle Spurge's stitched pieces were simple and lovely, and while the paintings/collages featured (I missed who did these) were not terribly appealing to me specifically, I could certainly understand their value. They just weren't exactly my taste.

Aviary also has a little table in the back full of books, including many from local artists and writers. I didn't get enough time to explore that, but I'd very much like to read some of the local works, and was thrilled to see people doing that.

Monumental Cupcakes had a really fun series of pictures - many requiring old 3d glasses to view - of rock shows, a tin man, and some staged images that could have been porn if they had any nudity in them. Particularly unsettling (read: my favorite piece in there) of a woman in a refrigerator snarling at the camera in throwback red-and-blue pop-out begged to make it to my wall. Alas, I'm a poor person. Other spaces within the bakery showed off Sex Pistols inspired pieces that may or may not have lacked any real merit, but were really fun nonetheless.

The dud was UForge Gallery. I'm going to be honest. I had my reservations about UForge before I went in. I had missed the first show of the "assignment" issuing gallery. It's theme of art deco seemed like a drab class assignment by an uninventive history teacher in the midwest who had what he perceived as the misfortune of having to teach art class due to budget cuts. This month's assignment, "remembering Andy Warhol," didn't make me much more hopeful. It did not let me down in letting me down, either. A series of pieces derivative of Warhol's famous and long clichéd silk screen prints and Campbell's Soup cans conjured the feeling one gets when his mom calls him from Target to tell him that she's found something "perfect for your apartment."

I don't mean to beat up on them too much, but in a neighborhood that is starting to really show quality work, a gallery that is so reminiscent of the stale Cape Cod-esque set feels out of place and disappointing.

Music was also on. Performances in City Feed & Supply and Dame were folksy and great, giving people something to watch and adding an impeccably appropriate soundtrack to the streets.

My wife and I grabbed some eats at James's Gate and made our way through all of it. Most places had wine or other refreshments. A few drinks in, along with a few bucks in drink donation jars, it was an enjoyable evening for sure. Rarely do I walk around my neighborhood thinking "I wish more people were here." Today was one of those days.

I don't wear a bike helmet.

I'm an avid cyclist. This does not mean that I own or wear Pearl Izumi pants or that I own neon. It doesn't mean I have a pile of bike friends with whom I ride, discuss riding, eat Clif bars with, or share cigarettes with while coasting in the Tour de France. It also doesn't mean that I wear a helmet.

What it means is that I own a bicycle, and whenever possible, I ride that bicycle. I ride it to and from work, between neighborhoods, or wherever I need to go. Sometimes, I even ride for leisure!

I don't consider myself part of a "biking community" any more than I consider myself part of a "hat wearing community" or a "guy who still uses the United States Postal Service community." As such, I tend not to give people free biking advice unless I'm asked for it. Unfortunately, I am not always extended the same courtesy. So I have decided to give out some biking advice: Stop giving out biking advice. Specifically, stop yelling at me for not wearing a helmet.

I know how important it is to wear a helmet. I know it protects my fragile, incredibly valuable brain from the cold, hard reality of pavement and car parts. I know that they've even figured out a few designs that don't look completely stupid. I don't need anyone yelling at me from across bike paths or on the other side of the road or even from a car asking me where my helmet is. My helmet doesn't exist. I don't own one. I don't intend to purchase one any time soon. Stop yelling at me about it.

I might appreciate your advice from time to time, if not for your tone. But like when an adult tells another adult that smoking is bad for them, there's no way to politely say "that thing you're doing is hazardous to your health, and while I know you've been told this for a minimum of 150 years, I am concerned you may not have actually heard/read/understood the warning. So just a quick reminder for you: Despite your being deaf, blind, and/or possibly mute, I care about your health."

Now smoking isn't a perfect analogy. There are selfish reasons to hate people for smoking. Smoking pollutes the air, makes things smell, and causes cancer among people who do not smoke. By saying "smoking is bad for you" to someone who marginally knows you or is a total stranger, you're being insincere in your approach, but your concern is justifiable. This is not the case with helmet wearing.

My lack of helmet doesn't hurt other people. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that should I be flung from my bicycle head first toward your head or body, you may even fare better against my bare skull than you would against the same cranium with armor. Helmets also smell. My head smells less helmetless. Finally, my smashed head does not cause cancer. You might even lose weight, because the sight might make you puke.

So okay, smoking and not wearing a helmet are almost totally incomparable. I guess it's possible that you're just looking out for my health. Maybe you even like me! But wait, why does your tone suggest that you think I'm a bad cat juggler who wears babies for shoes? I mean, you really sound angry! When you (and I am using a general "you," assuming you're all part of one smug, judgmental pseudo-liberal group mind) shouted to me "where's your helmet?" with an angry tone the first few times, I assumed it was just to make sure I could hear you. When it became "where's your fucking helmet?" I thought maybe you had Tourette's. It was "get a helmet, asshole" where you convinced me that maybe it wasn't my interests you had in mind.

Here's the thing - initiatives to encourage people to wear helmets are great. So are local bike shop and charity drives for helmets. There are a bunch of cafes and stores who even offer discounts to people with helmets. That's great. It isn't the law, though. There are laws about lights. I was informed of them by a Boston police officer on the Southwest Corridor in Jamaica Plain. The officer also explicitly said "we also recommend you wear bright colors and a helmet. Now that's not the law. Just something we recommend." Thanks, police officer. I will take that into account. That conversation made me think "maybe I should go pick up a helmet when I buy that front light." It was then that a piece of the collective "you" whizzed by me going the other direction yelling "get a helmet, asshole."

Well done, you. You've succeeded in your objective. This is only if your objective is veiled, as I suspect it is. You want people to hate bicycle riders. You want people to think folks on two wheels are all priggish, snotty know-it-alls who make life choice suggestions not because they're actually concerned with people, but because they want people to know how much better they are at stuff. "Nice '96 Ford truck! Now get a Prius!" "I see you're eating a hamburger. I hope you know you're murdering both cows and the future." "Your head is exposed. Luckily, I'm not as stupid as you, so mine is covered." Yep. Well done, you. You made a perfectly reasonable position sound like a real life animation of the worst Fox News caricature of what people from the northeast are like. You're totally better than me, and you're totally right. You might be sainted if you didn't know in your heart that organized religion is a misogynistic hierarchy meant to mislead the masses into a false sense of security about themselves. Because we all know who's on top.

The health care discussion, "death panels," and why people need to stop tolerating the crazies

Yes, I get it. More people oppose the Obama health care plan than support it. The most recent Gallup poll has people at 49% against and 43% for, which while in the margin of error, and suggests that the majority, 51%, is either in support or impartial, is nonetheless a less than convincing endorsement.

Now, here's the part where I explain why I don't care about what "the people" think on this particular issue.

It starts with the simple point about democracy. How we don't live in one, how we've never lived in one, and how we've never intended to live in one. We live in a republic. In said governmental structure, we elect people to make decisions for us so we don't have to worry about them. The hope is that they'll be better informed on the issues. We will not always agree with their decisions, but we elect and ultimately, if things go well, reelect them if they work in our best interests and do what we believe they think is right.

Doesn't that feel good.

Okay, now here's the part where I accept that that isn't how politicians work. They're greedy and often bought by big business. This is no exception. It seems logical then that the people would rise up and take on their government in a wide scale demand to protect them from the health care lobby.

The thing is, that's not what's happening. For the first time in history, it appears that we are on the cusp of getting something from the government that we need without unequivocally destroying the private industry that currently does what needs doing. The Democrats could propose a nationalized, universal health care plan that covers everybody. They didn't in large part because they don't have the votes to pass it, but also because many of them represent votes against it. Instead, they are offering a government option - one that doesn't unseat your private care, but gives an option to those who can't have it. In addition, to encourage private coverage, they have included language in the bill penalizing companies for failing to offer health insurance to employees, thus encouraging many companies who don't offer care but could if they weren't so motivated by profit.

The idea that a government option will kill competition and put the private insurers out of business (which is something I actually support) is unfounded. There is nothing in the bill that suggests that that is the goal, and even in Western countries that do have totally nationalized health care (see: England, France, Canada, etc.) private health care still exists and is profitable. What is being done is establishing a baseline.

Which leads me to "death panels." The senate, is was reported today, has removed the "end of life" provision in the bill which has been labeled a "death panel" by such experts as trained journalist and 20+ month governor Sarah Palin, failed sportscaster and abuser of pharmaceuticals Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, a man who, when not hosting his "news" program, is doing stand-up comedy tours. Seriously. He actually is a comedian. Meanwhile, rational Republicans in the House and Senate, as well as rational and educated conservatives (see: David Brooks) have pretty much unanimously declared the "death panel" accusation insane. Why? Because it's insane. It is clearly a misreading of a provision that families and their doctors should discuss options regarding terminal illness. It's not a negotiation. It's not a "what are you worth to society" question. It is a "do you want to keep fighting" or "do you want to suffer the painful treatments to prolong your life" discussion. It's one that I've had with my mother already, and she's only 49.

But it's been removed. Because the Democrats are cowards and are happy with watered-down versions of their objectives. Presumably, they'll call it compromise. But a compromise entails getting support you wouldn't have otherwise gotten, and my guess is that Michele Bachmann is voting no no matter what.

The reality is that there are a lot of people who have no idea what they're mad about. They're riled up by people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly Palin and Bachmann and friends, and they're out for blood. They are the Michael Moores and Keith Olbermanns of the right, but unlike them in two distinct ways. The first is that while Moore and Olbermann sometimes make distortions and omissions to drive home their point, this bunch is outright lying. There is no truth to death panels. There is no comparison to Nazi Germany. It's just not there. And for all the people on the right saying "the left called Bush a Nazi," you're right. And that was also dishonest and disgusting. But just because your opponents do something distasteful doesn't mean you should.

The other difference is that, unlike the liberal masses that unquestioningly follow the words of their leaders, the right's sheep have weapons. And it has become abundantly clear that they have no problem using them. Since the Obama election, gun and ammo sales have gone through the roof, Democratic congressmen have received death threats, and to date one conservative nut walked into the holocaust museum and opened fire, killing a security guard, and another walked into a church and killed an abortion doctor. I would love someone to provide me with an example of a politically motivated killing of a conservative in recent history. But you won't find one, because even the 9/11 is an inside job nuts (who are often called leftist, but happily blame Obama for the conspiracy theory they tout just as vehemently as they did Bush) don't shoot at the architects and engineers that disprove their nonsense.

These lunatics will continue spouting nonsense everywhere while the supposed "liberal media" tries to rationally explain the realities and intricacies, which no one has the time or interest to listen to. Why? Because it's not they're job. Meanwhile, 49% of America is holding up necessary legislation on health care, and of that 49%, around none of them are waiting to get insurance so they can finally see a doctor while the rest of us pile into free clinics and pay out of pocket the overinflated prices of big PHarma. Or worse, we don't go and don't get at all. But it's Obama that's talking about rationing. Right.

An open letter to Scientology protesters

I was driving through Downtown Boston with my mother and grandparents this afternoon. while driving up Boylston Street, alongside the Boston Public Gardens, I caught site of something that gave me pause: The statue of Wendell Phillips, one of America's leading abolitionist leaders and arguably one of its greatest trailblazers for tolerance, adorned in a plastic V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask.

This incident led me to truly understand the miseducation and shortsightedness of this ridiculous anti-Scientology campaign.

I am no fan of Scientology. It appears to me that they're little more than a crazy cult propagated by overfunded zealots. Their belief system to me is no more stable than those who look at Star Trek or Lord of the Rings for spiritual guidance. They, like most religions, are deeply flawed self-congratulatory propagandists. But it is, quite simply, their right to be that misled.

The foundation of freedom of speech, and ultimately that of free thinking, is that basis that bad ideas will be weeded out under proper intellectual scrutiny. Questions, more than any banners or demonstrations, are the enemies of junk-thoughts. It is proper inquiry that so greatly discredits Holocaust deniers and religious zealots, while it is open hostility, violence, and mindless opposition that lends it the credibility it so obviously does not deserve.

It is the last of these, mindless opposition, that is the root of the anti-Scientology movement's problem. Invoking the symbol of Guy Fawkes is the initial folly. Guy Fawkes, for those who aren't familiar (who apparently include those who wear his face), was a pro-Catholic activist that, with a cabal of like-minded citizens, plotted to blow up England's Houses of Parliament in 1605 to protest the Anglican government's oppression of those who practiced an unpopular religion. To invoke the face of a man who died defending his faith (he was publicly hanged by the Empire) is an absolutely unforgivable oversight that quite frankly discredits the entire attempt to criticize your opponents.

Add to that oversight your defacement of Wendell Phillips in the park, and you produce an image of futile and childlike hostility that does nothing more than a school boy's protest that he shouldn't have to eat his greens simply because they don't taste good.

I am also no opponent of protest. I have been a part of protests against a wide range of subjects, from the war to various economic policies to the misbehavior of priests. Protesting is a healthy part of an open society. It, like questioning, should be fostered within a society as a necessary part of citizenship. But like questioning, it should be done in an educated way. Blindly lashing out against something, or using symbols for which you don't know the meaning, never leads to anything but oppression and can end in tyranny - by either a minority or a majority. The destruction of any and all ideological enemies comes not from hollow slogans or empty actions, but by informed opposition and expository inquiry. Anything less, and you're just as bad as them.