OHIOAN with honorable guests Susan Alcorn (pedal steel), Jef Brown (tenor sax) and Hanna Choi (fiddle). Featuring the unfuckwithable Andrew Joseph Weaver as the entire rhythm section.
OHIOAN with honorable guests Susan Alcorn (pedal steel), Jef Brown (tenor sax) and Hanna Choi (fiddle). Featuring the unfuckwithable Andrew Joseph Weaver as the entire rhythm section.
Cowtown Keeylocko, located 40 miles southwest of Tucson near the Coyote Mountain WIlderness, is Ed Keeylocko’s Old West dream: a working ranch, a wooden saloon with sawdust floor, cows and horses, old-timers and rascals in the open air. Come out for good food and good music, and sleep under the stars with friends new and old.
ALGAE & TENTACLES
All are welcome and invited to camp overnight. Starts Saturday November 22 at 4pm, goes until Sunday November 23 at high noon.
From I-19, Go West on Ajo Highway 86, Turn left at Hayhook Ranch Road/Mile Marker 146 and go approx 4 miles to 1st Cowtown sign. Turn right & continue following the signs – Total of 4 “Cowtown Keeylocko” signs!
Rutland, Ohio, would seem an unlikely place for someone born in the heart of New York City, but at nineteen, disenchanted with consumerism, the Vietnam War, and a year of college, Paul Strauss left NYC to travel out west and landed in Taos, New Mexico. While in Taos, Paul was adopted by a Native American family and learned the value that a life connected to nature could provide. After hitching his way out of Taos, Paul stopped to help two men change a flat tire, and that accidental meeting set his path in life. Paul joined the two men headed for Hocking Hills, Ohio, to find the inexpensive land that they told him awaited. Once in Ohio, Paul bought his first 80 acres.
With over forty years of sound farming practices and knowledge of indigenous herbal plants, Paul has taken tracts of poorly farmed land, including strip mines, and turned them into his farm, a business, a school, and a sanctuary. As his sixtieth birthday approached, Paul became the first person to donate a parcel of his land, to the United Plant Savers organization. United Plant Savers has dedicated the land as a Botanical Sanctuary with the purpose of preserving and studying endangered indigenous plants in Ohio.
Twelve years ago, Richard Gilmore walked into a party and laid eyes on Vicki for the first time. It was like a scene from a 1940s Hollywood romance.
“If you were to film it, it would be so sappy and saccharine, you wouldn’t believe it,” recalled Richard, now 60. “There was a crowd of people, but all I could see was her.” Vicki, now 63, noticed Richard too, and began to stare back. The chemistry between them was immediate and irresistible. They say it was love at first sight.
“Oh my God,” Richard thought at the time. “It really happens.”
But this is where the old Hollywood romance ends and another kind of love story begins. A few weeks later, after her magical first date with Richard, Vicki went home—to Jim, her husband of almost 20 years. “Why didn’t you want to come with us tonight?” Vicki asked Jim, after she told him all about the date. “I wanted you to have a chance to get to know Richard one-on-one,” Jim told her.
“Wasn’t that cool of him?” Richard recalled.
So as Richard and Vicki started dating, Jim and Vicki happily continued their marriage. Nine months later, Jim met a woman named Maria. Jim and Maria began to date, and then Richard and Maria started dating, too. Finally, in 2002, as the group of four piled on coats and scarves to go out one chilly evening, Richard stopped at the door and looked back at everyone.
“We’re really a family now, aren’t we?” he asked. They were—and they have been ever since.
Richard, Vicki, Jim, and Maria are polyamorists: people who engage in what has been described as “consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy.” Unlike polygyny, where one man is married to multiple women, most polyamorists aren’t motived by religion. Instead, they describe their relationships in language that should be familiar to anyone: It’s just what feels healthy, happy, and natural for them.
And despite the stereotype of polyamorists as sexual anarchists who wouldn’t be interested in legal marriage anyway, Robyn Trask, the executive director of polyamory support organization Loving More, said the group’s forthcoming survey found that 65 percent of poly families would choose to legalize their unions if they could, and an additional 20 percent would at least consider the option if it were available.
But seriously—is legal recognition of plural marriage just too complicated to ever be realistic? After all, government marriage comes with a whole list of associated burdens and benefits. Marriage laws influence alimony, health care, Social Security, hospital visitation, inheritance, criminal testimony, taxation, immigration, and more. Monogamous marriages are already vulnerable to marriage fraud, and polyamorous marriages could, in theory, open the door to even more radical forms of fraud—hundreds of people “marrying” for immigration purposes, for example, or criminal groups “marrying” to take advantage of spousal testimonial privilege. Maybe the pursuit of genuinely inclusive marriage equality isn’t worth the headache it would take to re-evaluate our tax, immigration, and criminal justice systems.
So let’s start with the fundamental question: What is marriage—and what do we want it to be? Is marriage a government program, meant to incentivize certain social goods? Is it a religious institution that should be separated from the state entirely? Is it a personal romantic choice?
In response to these questions, an alternative suggestion has emerged from an unlikely alliance between the far right and far left: Why not take the government out of marriage entirely? The list of people who have called for marriage privatization is long: libertarians David Boaz and Larry Elder, feminist Wendy McElroy, legal scholars Alan Dershowitz and Colin P.A. Jones, and leaders from Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, and other religious streams.
And they make a compelling case. Private marriage contracts, like private business contracts, could be established according to each family’s orientation and preference: heterosexual, homosexual, monogamous, polyamorous, or whatever. Religious marriage contracts could be established by the various religions—Catholic contracts, for example, might prohibit divorce, while fundamentalist Mormon and Islamic contracts could permit polygyny. (“Polygamy,” by the way, is technically a gender-neutral term that includes all plural marriages, regardless of the gender breakdown.)
Progressive and secular organizations could embrace a more inclusive definition of marriage without needing to campaign for government approval first. (And just to be totally clear, Twitterverse: Children, animals, and objects cannot sign any contracts and therefore could not sign private marriage contracts, either. OK?) Private marriage contracts, like business contracts, would be registered, recognized, and arbitrated by the state, but the families and nongovernmental organizations involved would be the only ones to set the specific contractual terms. Love, commitment, and family would define “marriage”—not the government.
To be fair, private marriage has its disadvantages. Many people argue that monogamous marriage is a social good, which the government should promote and incentivize with benefits. And there is a fair case that government marriage, albeit imperfect, is actually more egalitarian than private marriage would be, since a private system would empower religious and secular organizations, including ones that choose to discriminate. Finally, the legal institution of marriage arguably protects children (although government laws, such as child support, also protect nonmarital children) and it would be nearly impossible to fully privatize acrimonious divorce.
The privatization of marriage is especially controversial insofar as it relates to children. Government recognition of certain marriages is one of the ways the government endorses and promotes the monogamous (and, in some states, heterosexual) family structure it believes is best for children. But studies have found that diverse parenting environments, including polyamorous ones, aren’t necessarily better or worse for the children involved. In fact, children in some plural families can actually benefit from the increased resources, care, and flexibility that additional adults provide. From a global and historical perspective, the phenomenon of the two-parent nuclear family is relatively new, and not the only environment that can be healthy for children. The happiness and well-being of kids in all kinds of families (monogamous, polyamorous, heterosexual, homosexual, or single-parent) depend far more on things like stability, boundaries, support, and love—not on the private, responsibly conducted sex lives of the adults involved.
“I’m not his dad, I’m his Artie,” said Arthur, a 32-year-old polyamorist who has lived with his girlfriend, her husband, and their son for the past eight years. “But from the outside, you wouldn’t see a difference. When he was born, all three of us were there. When he cries in the middle of the night, all three of us are there. We’re as much of a family as anyone, just without the legal status.”
In either a public or private marital system, extending marriage access to plural families would obviously be very complicated. Why should we even care? Polyamorists are a minority, and they, unlike same-sex couples, arguably choose their lifestyle. It’s easy to ignore or marginalize them. But their families raise fundamental questions about how our government interacts with our sexual and romantic lives. Is marital status the best standard by which to determine access to government benefits, or could we find a better way through marriage privatization? If not, should we wrestle with the implications of government marriage until we find a public solution that is fair to everyone? Whatever the answer, conversations about widespread marriage equality are worth the legal, emotional, and intellectual work it takes to have them.
“Our lifestyle isn’t for everybody, but this is what works for us,” said Vicki. “We consider ourselves married. We consider ourselves a family. Sometimes love catches you by surprise. Why do we want to put boundaries around that?”
One of the truest musical revolutionaries in history.
Hancock’s TED Talk, “The War on Consciousness”, was deliberately removed from YouTube: “Graham Hancock’s talk, again, shares a compelling and unorthodox worldview, but one that strays well beyond the realm of reasonable science. While attempting to critique the scientific worldview, he misrepresents what scientists actually think…” Chris Anderson, [TED]. After some debate, this presentation was not fully re-posted to TED’s site, but rather subjugated to a new, unseen basement corner on TED’s site, limiting its future visibility.
Graham Hankcock is the author of major international bestsellers, his books have sold more than five million copies worldwide and have been translated into 27 languages. His works present the nature of consciousness, Ayahuasca, and altered states of consciousness and offer an essential examination of our culture.
TED also removed the recent talk by author and bio-chemist Rupert Sheldrake. In the bold debate about the nature of human consciousness, Rupert Sheldrake stands out for questioning the standing dogmas of modern science and for bringing us his fascinating theory of Morphic Resonance regarding the collective memory and the habits of nature.
Check out their dates here:
There is a food revolution taking hold all over America, whether it is in the form of demanding labeling of GM foods, the right to produce and sell raw milk and other commodities, or – in the case of Sedgwick, Maine – declaring all local food transactions of any kind free and legal.
According to the website FoodRenegade.com, Sedgwick is the first city in the U.S. to free itself from the constraints of federal and state food regulation. Published reports say the town has passed an ordinance that gives its citizens the right “to produce, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,” regulations be damned. The ordinance includes raw milk, meats that are slaughtered locally, all produce and just about anything else you might imagine.
And what’s more, three additional towns in Maine are expected to take up similar ordinances soon, said the FoodRenegade.com.
Gee – good, ol’ fashioned buyer-seller agreements?
Observers of the Sedgwick ordinance say it is much more than just “statement” legislation. Writes blogger David Grumpert, at TheCompletePatient.com:
This isn’t just a declaration of preference. The proposed warrant added, “It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.” In other words, no state licensing requirements prohibiting certain farms from selling dairy products or producing their own chickens for sale to other citizens in the town.
What about potential legal liability and state or federal inspections? It’s all up to the seller and buyer to negotiate. “Patrons purchasing food for home consumption may enter into private agreements with those producers or processors of local foods to waive any liability for the consumption of that food. Producers or processors of local foods shall be exempt from licensure and inspection requirements for that food as long as those agreements are in effect.” Imagine that-buyer and seller can agree to cut out the lawyers. That’s almost un-American, isn’t it?
According to Deborah Evans, a Sedgwick citizen, the ordinance further states:
(1) Producers or processors of local foods in the Town of Sedgwick are exempt from licensure and inspection provided that the transaction is only between the producer or processor and a patron when the food is sold for home consumption.
(2) Producers or processors of local foods in the Town of Sedgwick are exempt from licensure and inspection provided that the products are prepared for, consumed or sold at a community social event.
For those questioning the legality of the ordinance – as in, it obviously circumvents state and federal food laws – she notes:
[W]e the radicals who concocted this mutinous act of infamy believe that according to the Home Rule provisions of our State Constitution, the citizens of Sedgwick have the right to enact an ordinance that is “local and municipal in character.”
‘It’s about time’
Many of the local farmers say the ordinance is just what is needed.
“This ordinance creates favorable conditions for beginning farmers and cottage-scale food processors to try out new products, and to make the most of each season’s bounty,” farmer Bob St. Peter told the website FoodFreedom.com. “My family is already working on some ideas we can do from home to help pay the bills and get our farm going.”
“Tears of joy welled in my eyes as my town voted to adopt this ordinance,” said Sedgwick resident and local farm patron Mia Strong. “I am so proud of my community. They made a stand for local food and our fundamental rights as citizens to choose that food.”
St. Peter, who is a board member of the National Family Farm Council, a food freedom advocacy group, notes that small farmers have a much tougher row to hoe, especially in today’s economy, so they need the ability to sell their products more freely.
“It’s tough making a go of it in rural America,” he said. “Rural working people have always had to do a little of this and a little of that to make ends meet. But up until the last couple generations, we didn’t need a special license or new facility each time we wanted to sell something to our neighbors. Small farmers and producers have been getting squeezed out in the name of food safety, yet it’s the industrial food that is causing food borne illness, not us.”
OHIOAN is back from the January West Coast tour. Lots of great memories and love from all peoples.
Highlights: cops broke up the Flagstaff houseshow 2.5 songs in, arrested the tenants. Then the audience helped us carry gear down the street and set up a different house. Rocking recommenced. Played a drone set at a yoga class in Prescott, then brought the yoga folk to our rockshow house party later that night, and everyone got a full-spectrum chakra cleansing. Denied entry into Canada due to criminal records, instead went to Bellingham, WA, crashed a Battle of the Bands, and won the hearts of “The City of Subdued Excitement”. Sam led an “experimental yoga” class at a record store in Portland, leading showgoers through the “Jimi sutra” and “dogward down”. Completely remodeled minds at a basement show in Portland, 2 encores and screams of “fuuuuuuuuuck yessssss!”
Here’s a clip from the homecoming show in Tucson:
A nonchalant acoustic live set taped for Simple Folk Radio UK.
OHIOAN starts about 35 minutes in.
Our good friend Adam Gnade over at Microcosm Distro posted this righteous list.
Here’s Adam with the details:
Out here on the Hard Fifty Farm we are pushing every day to live a life unbeholden to corporations, creditors, or general assholes. Removing yourself from the city can be a rough experience and we’ve had our share of disasters, fucked-up mornings, and canyon-deep lows. Here are some books that’ll help you get through…
1) RADICAL GARDENING, AVAILABLE HERE
2) THE BACKYARD HOMESTEAD, AVAILABLE HERE
3) THE URBAN HOMESTEAD, AVAILABLE HERE
4) A STEAMPUNK’S GUIDE TO THE APOCALYPSE, AVAILABLE HERE
5) PREPAREDNESS NOW, AN EMERGENCY SURVIVAL GUIDE, AVAILABLE HERE
6) WHEN THERE IS NO DOCTOR: PREVENTATIVE AND EMERGENCY HOME HEALTHCARE IN CHALLENGING TIMES, AVAILABLE HERE
7) CREATIVE HANDS: THE COMPLETE KNITTING, DRESSMAKING, AND NEEDLECRAFT GUIDE, AVAILABLE HERE
8) WILD FERMENTATION, AVAILABLE HERE
9) HOME COMPOSTING MADE EASY, AVAILABLE HERE
10) FIX IT, MAKE IT, GROW IT, MAKE IT: THE DIY GUIDE TO THE GOOD LIFE, AVAILABLE HERE
One of our favorite authors, stark scribe of the Sonoran Desert, Charles Bowden gets harsh and real on Democracy Now.
Bowden starts about 29 minutes in.
Anyone else find the Marvin Gaye needledrop totally inappropriate and borderline offensive? Fuckin baby boomers, always good for a laugh and perspective.
Some fashonistas strive for sexy when it comes to clothes, but one artist from New York is taking a rather utilitarian approach with outfits — he’s about to unveil a whole line of garments designed to make the wearer nearly invisible to drones.
Brooklyn-based artist Adam Harvey used to work primarily with photography, but he undertakes an entirely different medium with his newest project. He says that in the years since the United States post-9/11 PATRIOT Act has been in place, cameras have stopped becoming “art making tools” and have instead become “enablers of surveillance societies.”
That was Harvey’s explanation last year when he discussed his projects with the website Rhizome. At the time, Harvey was experimenting with how household make-up could render it harder for computers to use facial recognition programs to pluck people out of crowds. And while the practice of examining facial features using biometrics and sophisticated surveillance cameras has certainly intensified in the months since, Harvey has found another type of evasive practice that is a bit harder to avoid: the drone.
The United States currently has a modest arsenal of unmanned aerial vehicles — UAVS, or drones – that it uses in surveillance missions on its border with Mexico and in war zones overseas. By the year 2020, however, the Federal Aviation Administration expects the number of domestic drones in American airspace to be as large as 30,000.
At the moment, law enforcement agencies across the country are trying to get their hands on their own surveillance drones, some of which “can zoom in and read a milk carton from 60,000 feet,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And while escaping a space-age robotic spy machine thousands of feet above the Earth might not be as easy as, say, putting on some blush or mascara to make it harder to be detected, Harvey has designed an entire clothing line that will help disguise people from the all-seeing eye of Big Brother.
On January 17, Harvey will unveil Stealth Wear at a studio in London. There he’ll debut his “new counter surveillance fashions” that he plans to also test before his private audience.
“Building off previous work with CV Dazzle, camouflage from face detection, Privacy Mode continues to explore the aesthetics of privacy and the potential for fashion to challenge authoritarian surveillance,” the press release reads.
In collaboration with NYC fashion designer Johanna Bloomfield, Harvey has tried to tackle “some of the most pressing and sophisticated forms of surveillance today.”
Ultimately, it’s a fashion statement that says an earful to those enabling a growing spy state.
“I think building privacy into modern garments can make them feel more comfortable and, like armor, more protected,” Harvey told Rhizome last year. “Data and privacy are increasingly valuable personal assets and it doesn’t make sense to not protect them. It’s also a great conversation starter.”
Harvey hopes to get those conversations starting next week in London, where he will unveil an anti-drone hoodie and matching scarf, a shirt that shields the wearer from X-rays and a pocket protector that he says blocks cell phones from sending and receiving signals.
For the hoodie and scarf set, Harvey and Bloomfield use materials designed to thwart thermal imaging, which the artist says most UAVs employ in order to zero-in on targets. The t-shirt allegedly protects a person’s internal organs from harmful X-rays and the “Off Pocket” pants accessory disconnects mobile devices from service providers with special materials.
“Smartphones infiltrate our senses. They cause anxiety, phantom vibrations, and keep us on alert,” he told Rhizome. “We expend energy maintaining an always-on connection. Smartphones should come with a switch to turn this off, but they don’t. Turning my iPhone off and back on takes 45 seconds. Using flight mode is also clumsy. I wanted a way to quickly and politely disconnect myself without relying on the phone’s software or hardware features. The Off Pocket circumvents this design flaw.”
“[W]hen I first modified my pants with signal attenuating fabric, it felt odd to be unplugged. It was as if I had blocked out part of the world, covered my ears, or closed my eyes. But then I adjusted and realized that I had just opened them again.”
The artist says accompanying each project will be either recorded and in-person demonstrations that reveal the process behind each specific technology and counter technology relevant to his work.
Speaking to the UK’s Register back in 2010, Harvey said even then that surveillance was becoming more prevalent.
“The number of sensors that are going into the public spaces has been increasing,” he said, adding that we very well might be “heading to the point where we as a society need to think about what we are comfortable with.”
“Maybe you could go to a privacy hair stylist in the future,” he quipped.
First ever OHIOAN full-band tour. 6-piece motherlovin loud group with two drummers, sax, lapsteel, noise, guitars.
Come and see it. We’ll have limited tour-only shirts and handmade pinon/creosote salve!
January 4 – La Cocina – Tucson, AZ
Jan 5 – SkyBar – Tucson, AZ
Jan 6 – Lost Leaf – Phoenix, AZ
Jan 7 – Aqua Farm – Prescott, AZ
Jan 8 – Houseshow – Flagstaff, AZ
Jan 9 – Royal House – Las Vegas, NV
Jan 10 – Bunkhouse – Las Vegas, NV
Jan 11 – Biko Garage – Isla Vista, CA
Jan 12 – Bows + Arrows – Sacramento, CA w/ DEAD WESTERN
Jan 13 – Fractal Mind Gaze Hut – Oakland, CA w/ LEMON BEAR
Jan 14 – Valentine’s – Portland, OR
Jan 15 – Little Axe Records – Portland, OR
Jan 16 – Comet Tavern – Seattle, WA w/ ANGELO SPENCER
Jan 18 – Shama Lama Ding Dong – Olympia, WA
Jan 19 – Kenton Club – Portland, OR (country set, performing as OTHER SON) w/ GHOST TO FALCO
Jan 20 – Stantonova – Portland, OR w/ SUN ANGLE / HOOKERS / HOT VICTORY / AAN
Jan 21 – Houseshow – Davis, CA
Jan 22 – Arlene Francis Center – Santa Rosa, CA w/ ODD BIRD
Jan 23 – Hemlock Tavern – San Francisco, CA w/ WHISKERMAN
Jan 24 – Houseshow – Oakland, CA w/ CASS MCCOMBS
Jan 25 – LA???????? (help needed)
Jan 26 – LA/San Diego?
Jan 27 – Club Congress – Tucson, AZ w/ GOLDEN BOOTS