You’ve seen these stickers in public locations around, picked up in bulk from the post office, scrawled in seemingly identical handwriting in a language and spelling approaching “text-ese”, with messages and commentary for the public’s consideration.  It’s an “info-war” for your mind.  Or “Culture Jamming”.  Or graffiti.  One of the three, or all of the three.

It’s routinely placed on a box of the Willamette Week.  Which is where I saw one reading:
AT LEAST THEY CREATE JOBS.  REALY.  (sic)

I don’t know what this comment is directed at, or a response for.  It could be a supply side argument in the general direction of a “liberal” paper apt to react harshly to certain tax policies.  But I doubt it.  It’s not attached to anything, and the type of person who would place a sticker on a free weekly newspaper box does not strike me as the type to argue the Friedman school of Economics.

It does not appear to be anything for the cover feature — a series of articles of “slice of lice” portraits quirkily off of the Holiday season.  The only article I see in this week’s paper that this might possibly make sense is the piece on charities with large overhead budgets.  It might make an interesting argument depending on whether money falls to employees.  But this is a stretch.

It is the case where the sticker commentary does not necessarily need to directly reference the cover story.  But that is only when the Willamette Week is a high profile part of the story itself, and we are a ways off from Sam Breedlove.  Maybe the sticker is mis-placed and was meant for the Portland Mercury and its commentary on  “Peacock Lane”?

A few weeks ago, sometime after dark — between 9 pm and 10 pm, I was walking downtown and saw an odd sight.  A woman flashed a high powered light over her across the street, illuminating herself out of the darkness, but rather briefly.

It was odd.  I looked over, glanced — suspected Solicitation for Prostitution based largely off of dress (nothing that would be out of place at a nightclub, I suppose) and circumstances (you don’t just flash a light over yourself like that, do you?) Is that how that’s done? — then diverted my eyes forward as I passed the scene of the whatever.

Overheard:  “The thing about Shakespeare is — he was incredibly long-winded.”
I loved that comment.  For the simple reason that it is sure to elicit a comment like this one, also overheard, spoken once the original commenter passes out of sound:
“Shakespeare is long winded?”
“That’s the problem with modern day ignorance.”

It is a sort of contrarianism I wish I were brave enough to profer in the way of this commenter, as jest, and to confound the stranger.  I dare not to, though, for the fear that I will run into the stranger I mean to wrangle in and annoy with such a comment, and I would never be able to win again the lost standing.  Even beside that, I’d have done a part in contributing to their sense of a culture falling to pieces — something that could be fun indeed to do, but also might not be advisable.  The point in favor of such utterances it the thought that just about any response would be either disproportionate to the subject at hand, or a sign of much bigger cultural stakes than is encapsulated in this minor comment.

A little over a year ago, I ran into a headline on whether Shakespeare still reaches / moves us — no, really?  It was published in a major political magazine — here it is.  But he’s not out to argue the case against Shakespeare doesn’t have value.

Meantime, skipping from sixteenth century Brish commercial media to twenty-first century commercial media.  A man responsible for writing the “Jump the Shark” episode of Happy Days defended himself, or buttressed up his pop cultural credentials.  I do not think he quite gets it, as he reels and deals with the Sausage Factory of Television Production.  Take this statement… PLEASE.
Fortunately, my career didn’t jump the shark after “jump the shark.” When “Happy Days” ended, I went directly to the ABC Paramount hit show “Webster” and, after that, wrote and produced, among others, “It’s Your Move,” “He’s the Mayor, “The New Leave It to Beaver” and “Family Matters.”
He gave us Urkel, who was perpetually stuck in a one-note gimmick as Fonzi was when he jumped over a shark wearing a leather vest.  The mind reels.

Still, it’s hard not to read the comments responding to the story and see a certain “Disporportionality” to the cultural problem.

Does someone who is “cool” wear his signature leather jacket while waterskiing?  Of course not.  You turned Fonzie into an idiot.  Also, I have never read anywhere that “jump the shark” had to do with ratings.  It has to do with a show’s internal integrity.  This idiotic episode blew up the Happy Days universe.  Look at the picture.  A pier.  L.A.  Fonzie looking like he was drugged by the nerds he good-naturedly despised, and woke up on water skis.  You included water skiing because the actor liked to water ski?  Gosh, on that principle, how come you didn’t have Fonzi drop the whole blue collar thing and earn an MFA at Yale?

You’re such a Potsie.

AND

Look at the picture that accompanies this article: Fonzie is water skiing wearing a leather jacket. I don’t care if 100 million people saw the show. It was and continues to be mind numbingly stupid. What started as a comedy about high school kids in the 50’s in the midwest turned into a guy in a leather jacket water skiing in Southern California while wearing a leather jacket. Instead of doing something worthwhile with your life you wrote stupid television shows. Now, stop trying to justify the horrible things you did when you were younger and go crawl back in your hole.

But maybe they’re kidding and want to elicit a confounded “Woe is our Culture” response.

“(Hic)
Not Again.”

Somewhere around the Rose Garden, a rally was held wanting or demanding or hoping that the Portland Trailblazers basketball franchise would sign Lebron James.

Meantime, down by the waterfront a motorcade of police officers slid alongside a grouping of Anarchists, hemming them in and likely using the word “Containment” in discussion of strategizing what to do with this march — as they chanted, “No Justice, No Peace, Fuck the Police”.  Or so I heard.  I can’t quite get it down, because it seems like there should be a phrase in between the “No Peace” and the “Fuck the Police” — try it and say it aloud  — three or four syllables are missing in the cadence.

The Oregonian has, at oregonlive, coverage of the James rally.  I don’t see the 75 or 100 Anarchists there — for that, I have to go over to Portland Indymedia.  Granted, I don’t see coverage of the Lebron James rally at Portland Indymedia either — might be tucked in their Sports section somewhere.

On Sunday, I found myself mid-morning unexpectedly surrounded by Lesbians.  Gay Pride Parade!  I walked past it, and saw a few exhibits.  It’s a conservative and highly corporate affair.  I don’t know what Bill O’Reilly does anymore to get some “Scary” footage — No groups of nearly naked men prouncing about in underwear to the tunes of ABBA (It’s a Bill O’Reilly clip I saw years ago that is seared into my mind).  No NAMBLA float.  Politicians of the local city council stripe ushering in their staff (rhymes with “Saltzman”, following close on the heels of an Airline crew with small inflatable airplane balloons.  Are the parade of churches at the start or finish of these things?
Don’t see any mention of this thing at Portland Indymedia.  Probably view it as a bunch of Yuppies.  I see that the Oregonian article has over 80 comments — Brace yourself for comments such as:

Walking up a street.  There is a woman walking toward me.  She is talking on her hands free cell phone — the conversation on her end goes something like:
“Saturday, right? 2?  No?  How about 3?  All right, good.”

As she walks into a building, another person approaches, walking by, says something — vitriolic, though hard to say if you can call it cowardly or aware of some manners —

“Quit talking to yourself, you fucking loon.”

Now.  I have two issues with this.  One — I don’t understand — this person is not keeping up with new technological advances that have become common-place in the last decade?  Two — assuming that she is talking to herself — what is the point?

Third thought: it occurs to me, now that I think about it, that by talking past the person supposedly “talking to herself”, the person who was really talking to himself was the one taking offense at the idea — meaning he was a Self-Loathing Talking-to-himself person.

Elderly male, somewhat jovial demenor, sits next to me — waiting for the Max to come by.  Strung-out unhealthy in a bit too skinny (and important to note a bit over-tanned) woman walks by — I will suggest, though I don’t really much care to make aspersions, likely a prositute and likely has a drug addiction.  I say this with a note that I’d generally let these things fly and am open to assuming the best in cases where I don’t have reason to really care.

She stops, and makes a flirtatious remark to the old man.  If I could recollect what she said, I would pass it on — but, alas, it’s faded away never to return to my memory.
The man chuckles and responds with what I can only describe as, contextually amongst the most cringe-inducing and discomforting sentence I’ve ever heard in my life.

“Thank you.  And that’s a really beautiful brown body you’ve got on you.”

So I look away.  The girl says, sweetly, “I’ll give you a dance for a dollar?”
To which the man says, “No.  I’m not carrying any money right now” — again, a chuckle.

After a pause, the woman states, “And that’s a Cell Phone you’re carrying in your pocket” — which I think I can take to mean she had eyed the man based on a perceived wallet.

The man says, “Yesirre.”

And when the Max rolls in, I see the woman was gone.

A follow up to the curious case of a man fingered out by an “I Anonymous” letter to the Portland Mercury, see here.

There was some follow-up in Portland Mercury’s blog.  A letter was written on his behalf concerned for his safety.  The attitude of the I Anonymous writer cooled down a bit.

I saw the guy yesterday, working at this grocery store.  I assume he is the source of the controversy, unless there be multiple people walking the streets of Portland with Hitler mustaches.

Whatever the case, he shaved the thing off.

I suppose, if you can call this a campaign, the campaign got to him.

I am pretty sure I know who this “I Anonymous” writer is referring to.  Quite possibly you do too.  He works at a grocery store.  When I buy grocery stores with him clerking, I cannot say I’ve been offended so much as puzzled.  I half suspect a “Candid Camera” / “Punked” (Ashton Kushter still going with that one, or is that pretty well a product of the 00 decade?) situation — one of these days you will turn the television on and watch a sequence of customers fidgeting about nervously, tightening their lips so as not to ask the “What’s the deal with your mustache?” question and “It’s creeping me out” statement.

Really, I’m glad to see the commenters taking the Anonymous guy to task.  Clearly he’s not a neo-nazi.  To wit:
And that comment about reformed Jews is sure of a lot more insulting than facial hair…

Hitler ruined a perfectly good pattern of facial hair.  Perhaps it’s like something Bono does at U2 concerts before covering Helter Skelter.  “This song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles.  We’re stealing it back.”

In other news…