i just want to clarify what i said about mocad earlier, because we're increasingly living in a culture where we think it's ok to attack things for being different than us, and to a large extent that's actually what i'm trying to avoid.

so, i don't really like what's happening at mocad tonight: i think it's crude and greedy and bourgeois and pretty gross. this is apparently a part of a series that is going to feature foreign djs right in downtown detroit with inflated covers, over-policed spaces, over-priced drinks (no doubt) and gentrifying audiences, shut down before midnight. that's something i'd like to avoid, and i'd even use the word boycott. but, if i don't like it, and i don't want to be near it, does that mean i want to shut it down?

actually, i think it probably serves a purpose. and, i mentioned this in a previous post: let them have their own space. that is, if what they want is a place full of cops that caters to a more wealthy crowd that is afraid of poor people and their habits, then let them have it - and tell them to stay out of the dive bars, and to take the cops with them when they leave. because this is the exact opposite of what i want....

what i want is places in out of the way spaces - houses, warehouses, parks, etc - where the crowd mostly polices itself and the drinks are cheap, or brought by the patrons themselves.

because i'm an anarchist. and you're not.

so, if the kind of thing that mocad is doing tonight has the effect of keeping the kind of people that will go to a dive bar in an out of the way neighbourhood and complain that they don't feel safe out of those dive bars in out of the way neighbourhoods and in more wealthy neighbourhoods where they feel safer, then that is good for everybody. let them have their upper class spaces in the gentrifying zones; and let me have my lower class ones outside of them.

deal?