Board of Aldermen

Call to Arms

2006-09-12T17:20:00.000-05:00

Well, not really.

I just wanted to tell y'all that I'm starting a new blog about regulation and consolidation of media ownership, so if you get a chance, check it out, maybe leave a comment:

Nobles Weekly

Thanks, crew.

Self Interested Post

2006-07-13T12:55:00.000-05:00

Aye, it has been quite a while since the Aldermen have been invoked. I feel a bit silly calling out on such a trivial matter. But shake off the e-dust, fellow Aldermen, one of your own calls you back to the intellectual battlefield, if only for an opening volley.

I can no longer live with the shame of my false e-dentity, for the "LH" of LHP is all lies now. I need a new moniker. I could go with the obvious avatar or try to spice it up a bit. Just looking for suggestions, notions, and opening up the door to possible humor at my expense.

What's my name? That is all.

A fresh dawn blankets the battlefield, warm and idle

2006-04-18T16:44:00.000-05:00

Dramatis Personae
Sergeant Shackelzov: commanding officer
Das Rek: sniper, Company E 501st Division, His Holiness's army
Das Garmo: soldier, Company E 501st Division, His Holiness's army
Kommandant Miller: administrative courier

Act I. Scene I.

Setting
A trench below the Western Wall

KM: Comrades, you have received my summons so we might achieve resolution. Our war has reached an impasse. The current offensive against the enemy forces of the Fifth brigade - the 'Five for Fighting' - is now a hopeless endeavor. No longer can we lambaste their performance and pepper them with insult while simultaneously maintaining our supply lines to the soldiers of Antony, Joanna, and even Colin Meloy. It is imperative, therefore, we forfeit our imperialist desires for the sake of national consistency and security.

DR: Your strategy, good sir, fails due to an unfortunate implication, wherein resides an equivocation. The men of the Fifth are of different cloth than our allies in Johnson & Co. The latter's cries and chants are precise and adept and admirable. In this case, 'weird singing' is not the same as 'weird singing.'

DG: My assent goes to private Rek. Our allies manifest a technical superiority in both organization and composition. We should not sacrifice our allegience to them merely because the street-alley rabble of the Fifth employ similar weapons. Those cowards exhibit an inferiority in this war which has become our duty to exorcise.

KM: These remarks stand true. Nonetheless, would I be out of place to ask for an exhaustive synopsis of your beliefs?

SS: That may not be prudent Kommandant. If you will allow me...
We eat what we like. We hear what we hear. It is not our fault, nor our nation's, that our allies are blessed with voices playful and divine. An objective exposition of 5-4-Fighting's abyssmal army shall win no good. Through our will and commitments we understand this. It is a matter of passion and the sensitive eye, not technocratic intelligence. The war must rightfully continue.

KM: Your sentiments are thankfully noted. With this report I go to inform the Boss. In the morning he shall decide what course of action we will take in regard to the Fifth. However, in our best interest, do you have anything left to say before I depart?

(See, that last part is where you guys actually get to speak for yourselves. Is there anyway we can dig ourselves out of this apparent contradiction?)

Prosody Slam

2006-04-10T02:24:00.000-05:00

A group of guys cluster in a bright corner of a bar—as bright as corners of bars ever are. Besides them the bar is filled with blazer wearing hipsters wishing they could smoke their Pall Malls, Lucky Strikes, and Marlboro Lights (in a box). Tanned girls whose makeup makes them look like the victims of fresh skin grafts stare limply at a drunk 45 year old who has just put eight dollars in the jukebox and is now belting out the first track from Houses of the Holy.
Our gentlemen ignore this the way you ignore the pain in your foot while walking around campus or to work. Four of them discuss a film they just saw, the good action scenes, the holes in the logic, the holes in the plot. Most of them cautiously flirt with their beverages, giving them sidelong glances; for most of them this is the first visit to a bar in many months. One of them scribbles on a napkin, or makes flourishes on a notepad, or his fingers stab at a laptop. The one with the ponytail says something loud, accompanied with a vaguely relevant, vaguely deranged pantomime, and this gets a laugh. He lifts his stout and takes a stout drink in chorus with the writer, who then slams down his drink, a black Russian, on the table and says, “ready.” The drinkers become a crescent of silence around the writer—although they fail to keep the clamor of the bar out of their space, the ritual is enough.
“A malapropism is a ludicrous misuse of a word, often based on its sounding similar to another word. I’ve heard transaction substituted for transition—the relation of ideas here is noticeable, if not attractive. If one chooses to take what we might call a poetical approach, the two aren’t that different. They both carry commercial connotations. One can imagine a fist of cash paired with an offered item—the yin yang of exchange—as a literal transaction or a literal transition. Property is in transit, identity is in transit. We call this an interesting mistake.
“I’ve also heard amethyst substituted for atheist. Where the logic behind the previous slip seems reasonable (at least for some), this one deserves a snicker and a snort at the least. Our previous example has meaning to back it up; this one only has bad hearing and a foggy awareness. This syllabic metonymy, this, the worst of possible malapropisms, signified, implied, suggested, and demanded that I end a relationship with a girl who was, otherwise, not that great looking and from a place called “Mounds.” I doubt we could here tonight exhaust the deliberate malapropisms we could spawn from this charming fact.”
The young men sit in silence for a bit. The writer, now speaker, a little flushed, sets his teeth and grits, “so?”. He gives them sidelong glances, the blonde guy fidgets, and the boisterous chap with the ponytail opens his mouth.

Loose Change 2nd Edition

2006-03-07T01:16:00.000-06:00

Loose Change.

1) If you haven't seen it, watch it...right now. It's streaming on the web at several locations. Just search Google Videos for 'loose change' and watch it.

2) If you have seen it, what do you think? I'll be honest, I damn near shat myself the first time I watched it, but I still had/have my doubts. After watching it a second time, I'm still not sure.

Alright, Aldermen. Let's discuss it.

Anybody want a sandwich?

2006-03-01T23:04:00.000-06:00

Life in the 1950s must have been simple. With the Aldermen some thirty years from existence, the world didn't yet have a truly powerful force of sarcasm and social commentary. This isn't a full on, OG post, but it is a topic for consideration and discourse, or at least lots of crass, insensitive humor.

The Good Wife's Guide (Housekeeping Monthly 13 May 1955)

1 - Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready, on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they come home and the prospect of a good meal (especially his favorite dish) is part of the warm welcome needed.

2 - Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.

3 - Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.

4 - Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives.

5 - Gather up schoolbooks, toys, paper, etc and then run a dustcloth over the tables.

6 - Over the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering for his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.

7 - Prepare the children. Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and faces (if they are small), comb their hair and, if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part. Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vaccum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet.

8 - Be happy to see him.

9 - Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him.

10 - Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment he arrives is not the time. Let him talk first--remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.

11 - Make the even his. Never complain if he comes home late or goes out to dinner, or other places of entertainment without you. Instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure and his very real need to be at home and relax.

12 - Your goal: Try to make sure your home is a place of peace, order and tranquility where your husband can renew himself in body and spirit.

13 - Don't greet him with complaints or problems.

14 - Don't complain if he's late home for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through that day.

15 - Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or have him lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.

16 - Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.

17 - Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgement or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will in fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.

18 - A good wife always knows her place.

This is not an LHP fabrication, this is from a real publication. Was life ever really like this? Let the comments on social progress and the more likely comments setting back social progress spew forth, good Aldermen. The time for good-natured, pseudo-ironic mysogyny is at hand.

everyone else is (horribly, horribly) wrong

2006-03-01T09:13:00.000-06:00

Jesus, guys, sorry about killing the blog. I swear I had good intentions, or maybe just not-bad intentions, or at least good-bad intentions. I'd like to man up and give the board something to talk about, but I have absolutely no idea about current affairs; not watching TV is easier than you'd think when the only one with cable is across campus, and everyone knows newspapers are for losers (I mean, who needs newspapers when you have an endless supply of blogs, right?).

But, I am vaguely aware that most of us will soon be off for spring break, so I'll throw out the general topic of "spring break and you." It could simply be a bulletin of your location, amount of time and plans for the break; it could be an introspective mantage (we are all men here, aren't we?) of this semester's important moments; it could be a hateful letter you wish you could send to your professor about how unfair finals are and how much you'd love to jam your number-two pencil up his/her nose, and then patiently hammer it through his/her sinuses into his/her brain for the next 72 hours instead of spending that time cramming for tests whose questions and answers you'll probably forget a week after the test anyway. Regardless, it should in some way involve spring, spring break and/or you, and must be at least 250 words (I'm looking at you, leto). Essays are due Sunday, by noon, and no late papers will be accepted. Shanks out.

top 5 funniest things said on this blog (that i missed)

2006-02-09T01:34:00.000-06:00

So I was searching on my Google Favorites for god knows what... probably something porn or Magic related. Maybe both. Anyway, I noticed the Blogger Dashboard link and thought to myself, "I wonder if anyone still posts on there?" And, you guys do. So, as a way to integrate myself back into the community of Aldermen, I've made a top 5 list of the things that made me laugh the hardest as I scanned some of the posts to get up to date. It's sort of a post-modern (am I using the term correctly, leto?) VH1 "I love the" series type-thing where I try to historicize and analyze events that just happened even though I have absolutely no business imagining that I have enough distance from the events to be unbiased. God I hate VH1... and myself.

In no particular order:

5. "does anyone besides me get a little excited when that wendy's commercial comes on with the 10-patty burger and tempts you with it's heart-wrenching goodness?'--The comedy is really in imagining daniel saying it after he has just ignored paul's tirade.

4. "Force of Nature + Verdant Force + Child of Gaea = BOMBO"--Self-obvious.

3. "It's not cool when Nature uses tornadoes to throw cows at Bill Paxton, inadvertently endangering Helen Hunt's life."--Completely unexpected yet surprisingly on topic.

2. "Fall 2000 AD. During a moment of prolonged silence, Cole Murdock mutters, perhaps a little too loudly, 'balls deep' during a Charles Page Academic Team match."--Funny because it's true (and he's dead).

1." However, the habit of misusing large, obscure words, of mispronouncing them, of misapplying them, demonstrates a great deal about the insecurity of your character and the looseness of your intelligence."--Not really funny, but it was definitely an "Arsenio Hall" moment; I "whoo whoo whoo"ed.

0."Don’t worry about your permission slips, Rorix is driving, and he doesn’t care what your parents think!"--If you can't find humor in Rorix pasted on a schoolbus, I don't know what to say, other than, "This actually wasn't on any post... but it should have been."

So there you have it... a completely arbitrary value system that I based on five minutes of lazy research. God I hate VH1.

I do have a couple funny classroom moments so I might as well list them too:

1. Setup: lab class, we're talking about shooting electrons at atoms. The tutor is extremely old and condescending, making the class very dull for me and my friend.

Tutor: "So, when the electron enters the atom, what kind of a penetration is it? Is it a shallow penetration, or is it a... a... a... DEEP penetration?"
Student A: "I dunno, I don't think the penetration would be that deep."
Student B: "Well, the electron is supposed to be a lot smaller than the atom, so it seems like it would be a pretty deep penetration."
[The term "deep penetration" is probably used two dozen more times in the discussion without anyone noticing the absurdity of it except for my friend and I.]

2. Setup: math class, we're trying to explain some aspect of space-time contracting according to the theory of relativity. Ms. McCabe, a student, posits some explanation that makes no sense in the context of our discussion and only confuses the issue further.

Student A: "I don't think that's actually the case, Ms. McCabe."
Ms. McCabe: "Oh, I know it can't work in mathematics, but it's fun in my brain [giggles]."

All right. That's all I've got. Shanks out.

Materialism, exclusivity and origins, pt. 1

2006-02-07T01:09:00.000-06:00

Quick Note: This post will only deal with materialism's exclusivity to America. My theory of it's origin is not yet complete, so look for it on Tuesday or Wednesday. End Note

I'm just gonna throw it out there. I believe it is fair to assume that we are all in agreement that the form of materialism upon which we have settled is not exclusive to America. Western Europe and industrialized Asia are very close in GPD and personal expenditure to America across the board. So, in this state of global economics and the "global market," the geographic lines of separation do not aptly apply to nation-states in similar eco-political environments. Now this is not to say that America wave the big stick as the drum major in the annual materialism parade, but our notions stem from the other states sharing our current capitalist system. So what does this mean? Simply that the capitalist system we operate under as a fashion of our materialistic system is neither American in origin nor practice. So if it isn't American modernity causing materialism in our societies, why is it so constantly attributed to America? or is it...

OK so I can't answer that second part of the question. My first assumption here was that America is seen by the world as Materialism incarnate. But, it is a trait of much of the modern world. So, #1, is it truly attributed solely to America? Well, it is no secret that within America, we all place this title on our country. The simple fact that we're discussing this topic is pure proof that American's critique America for being Materialistic. I don't know about you all, but I have not spent much time in other countries discussing American capitalism lately. (That's not quite true; I do happen to know that the Blog members have also not done that). Because of this, it is somewhat difficult for me to get a good worldy handle on opinions towards America and materialism/capitalism. My general scientific leap and vast amount of time doing television research wherein American's tell me how the world thinks of us will allow me to assume that the
world does view us in this light. Again, although we all recognize that America is not alone in this occurrence, it is (seemingly) more prominently viewed as such.

So, #2, if America is not alone in its Materialism, why is it "lime-lighted" so? My conclusion is that American materialism is more prominent solely because America itself is prominent. Perhaps a blind sense of patriotism leads me to this, but I can NOT honestly say that American's are in a deeper pursuit of cultural desires beyond the acquisition of needs than the Euro's or Japanese are. For instance, Jaguar, Volvo, and Sony all have local markets that rival or beat American sales, and none of these companies manufactures products of "need." This leads me to an unfortunate impasse which I am forced to make an assumption to solve. There may be several reasons American materialism is more notable than across the globe, but my very debatable conclusion has fallen on this: America's level of "wealth" allows for a higher expenditure on many/most things, including so-called material goods. While America's Gross Domestic Product expenditure is almost twice that of other nations, our Gross Domestic Product expenditure PER CAPITA is not (we were soundly outspent by Luxembourg and rivaled by northern European countries oddly enough). So what this boils down to is that America spends more, but our people are spending no more than most other countries in our situation. Is it's simplest form, we have more, so we spend more and since we seem to spend more, we catch more guff about it, wrong or right.

This begs a good question: If materialism is good or evil, does that make America the most good or most evil? But that is a question for another day...

Stay tuned for pt. 2 - The Origins of Materialism, a distinctly political look at 16th Century political thought and class structure.

I Own a Jeep Cherokee!

2006-02-03T00:33:00.000-06:00

Materialism is a rough subject. Being that I have never lived or have extensive experience with other cultures, it is difficult to reach a conclusion that does not seem biased. Our society has developed far different from third world countries (3WC). There are several items that we purchase today as citizens that we feel are necessary. I own a ’94 Jeep. It is not life or death for me though. I consider myself a non-materialistic American; I don’t buy a whole lot, just clothes, food, maybe a few “wants,” but not nearly like some of my friends. If I am non materialistic, then why would I own such a car? Our society demands it. In 3WC, people walk miles to their wells everyday while I sit in the comfort of a home, that doesn’t quite seem fair to me. So what should I do? There are not really many options here, the reason why is that for me to be a successful (the American dream and possible future discussion topic?) person in the workplace and at home, I must cave in to exhibiting a materialism compared to 3WC.

Another point I’d like to make is with the lady that began this all. Is money that crucial in a marriage? Considering I’m not married, I lack experience in some areas of importances, but it was my understanding that couples should disregard all outside effects and base their marriage on love. I think the area she should be blaming the divorce on is the individualistic attitude of society. America teaches individualism; being yourself is so engrained into us that some people (obviously, not everyone is prone to this) can disregard the best course of action for the group. I think that’s why divorce rates are sky high, people have lost the sense of teamwork. Decisions should never be based on what is best for you, but best for the situation at hand.

?The Fifth Noble Truth: Greed is Good?

2006-01-30T00:41:00.000-06:00

I’m not sure how profitable it is to discuss the consensus definition of materialism without addressing what it only loosely describes, but I’ll make the attempt. The “meaning” I’ll work with is the one implied in a statement like “gah, don’t be so materialistic, Kelly!” It seems to me this use refers to some sort of emphasis on one kind of value at the expense of another. Other examples of this kind of substitution include the stereotypical businessman’s willingness to sacrifice quality merchandise, employees, or environmental responsibility for the sake of profits. We could explore similar situations, but I think it’s safe to say that we are looking at a conceptual binary—let’s call it x/y—where x is “material value” and y is “something we imagine is better but nobody can seem to agree about.”

Possible meanings for y might include “the common good,” “spiritual”—as opposed to mundane or profane—significance, or any number of iterations of “something better than materialism.” It is essential to this question of materialism that its alternative—is it an attitude? an epistemology? a metaphysical position?—appears untouchable, and that a consensus certainly couldn’t agree on a definition.

If we choose to be more specific in our definition of materialism, and use the one presented in our discussion so far, we can certainly say more. The common notion of the dog is that if you put food in front of him, he will continue to eat indefinitely. He has no sense of excess. We usually attribute this to the lack of abundant food in the dog’s “natural” habitat; it would be unwise and inefficient to leave anything behind. On the other hand, our grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ behavior during the great depression consisted of consuming only exactly what was necessary and stockpiling the rest. Clearly, stockpiling is not an exclusively human trait—squirrels and acorns come to mind—but the way humans employ their surplus is what more than likely constitutes the materialism that we’re addressing. (The problem with this is that it does not address materialism as defined by Buddhism; in fact, the woman in the original description is equivocating rather flagrantly.) A development that I believe is parallel with the surplus is the abstraction of value from function.

Imagine a situation where humans have as much food, water, building materials, etc, as they need, and that the excess is stockpiled by those that discover, mine, grow, etc, the material. In our situation, the only value we assign an object is relative to its scarcity in the face of future threats to its availability. In other words, since a dry season is reasonably possible, but not by any means a certainty—at least in the hypothetical land we’re describing—foods would have a value of 5 (on a 1-10 scale). Surplus metal, on the other hand, might have a very low value at first, which would steadily go up as its availability decreases, but in the mean time metal seems readily available when needed. (Obviously this model is absurdly simplistic--even if only scarcity values are assigned, the complexities of supply and demand both internal and external to society are enormous. The model is useful in how it contrasts idealistic types of value with realistic types of value.)

Could this be the only way people value material objects? It seems to me that this is the ideal sort of existence that the offending woman would put forth as preferable to America's current state.

The problem is this system is basically an ant colony. I’m fairly certain that for anything resembling culture to exist we must place another kind of value on material. We might call this cultural value. Cultural value would be the price I pay for having a dog as a pet, or the price I pay for art supplies, or that I pay for car insurance. None of these things seem necessary for humanity’s reproduction—yes a dog can have functional value, but this is different than “pet value.” (Other things besides material objects could, and do, have cultural value. These include things like trips to the Bahama's or visits to theme parks. While they some material component, that component is not retained after the fact. Visiting a prostitute might fit the same niche.)

What would cause culture to begin with? Spare time? A need to establish a system of order? God? One possibility that feels vaguely Marxian is that culture is a byproduct of economic and political evolution. It seems unlikely that all--or any--products employed for the improvement of society fall on our heads in their useful forms. Rather, it takes interested minds to discover their possible uses. Prior to its use as a digging instrument or a weapon, a stick might’ve simply been a toy. This actually wouldn’t so much be a byproduct of social evolution as much as it would be a moment for social evolution to make a leap forward—an opportunity for growth. On the other side, objects that have social or practical value can clearly become informed with cultural value—take swords in their most common present occupation.

We appear to have an interweaving relationship between social value and cultural value. According to our previous understanding, materialism, or greed, is the desire of some object beyond one’s need of it. It seems to me that this desire is for an object’s cultural value. Although a miser might stockpile some object with the intent of only using in a specifically environmentally required moment, I think it’s safe to assume that his sociopathic need of the thing is predicated by his relationship with culture—the miser is not an ant, but a human with specific resentful relations to other people based on the commodities he sees from his position and how they change hands regardless of his wants—not needs. (Unfortunately, I don't think it's safe to equate greed and desire for something's cultural value; I don't think I'm greedy if I want to buy a dog, for instance. This means there is a certain amount of cultural desire that's okay. Does this correlate with the amount of "practical desire"--need--that's okay? Does the system in which we live create justification for a certain amount of acceptable cultural desire?)

But what causes cultural desire? It might be a function of the system, an evolutionary advantage that allows us to want objects, bring them into our social sphere, and eventually to employ them in some practical way.

Without going into exhaustive detail, this might be a justification for the losses that many individuals and smaller groups experience because of materialism. Under this model we might view materialism is a messy social drive that benefits the whole rather than the individual (sounds like anti-Rand capitalism). Unfortunately the whole is represented by the rich, making it not really the whole at all. It only remains the whole because of our desire to maintain national allegiance and our national boundaries (this allegiance and its causes are a completely separate topic). We can say America benefits if some Americans benefit, in other words. So perhaps it only benefits certain individuals whose job it becomes to convince us that we benefit as well. In this situation the U.S. might be an oligarchy--but you didn't get that from me.

As far as “materialism” and “capitalism” are concerned, though, national exclusivities only create interesting restrictions that the powerful can easily use to their advantage. One has only to play a few games of Risk or chess to understand how this works.

Next time: the benefits of materialism under this model (in other words, what is it better than), other possible causes of cultural desire, editing, responses, and rebuttals.

quick aside

2006-01-26T20:18:00.000-06:00

I'll get to Darek's proposed topics soon, but I wanted to briefly put out my thoughts on this James Frey subject. I find it rather problematic that on shows like Oprah the experts we speak with are publishers and journalists--even a professor of journalism--but no one in academic literary studies. I'm not sure, but I don't believe another writer even weighed on. The publisher at least spoke about the believability of Frey's book as the primary criterion for publishing, and "rebuked" Oprah when she suggested that Frey's book could've been released as a novel--the difference between memoir and novel are not so simple as the Book Club would have you believe. In any case, it depresses me that Oprah can't identify relevant expertise in this situation, but even worse is how quickly we turn to journalists, people much maligned as of late for their inability to say much that is either true or relevant. O's professor proposed some ridiculous rating system--why not have a rating system for journalism? Does this piece tell the truth? Is it relevant? Does it help anyone, or does it push Americans ever further into the culture of fear that nowadays generates 'news' ratings? Clearly this would be fascist, but why assail some silly (and probably skeezy, and almost certainly bad) writer when journalists make their bread on a daily basis using much the same methods? And besides all this, authors have been lying in supposed memoirs for hundreds of years! This is not news! I could say a lot about forced contemporary classifications having ridiculous effects on the way we perceive long existing cultural objects and practices, but instead I'll say this: on the whole, journalists at this point seem to create many more problems than they help solve. I don't care about James Frey. Get your "truth" out of my face.

Don't forget about the Darek's post!

Consideration

2006-01-26T13:59:00.000-06:00

When discussing Buddhism today, a lady decided she would consider the 1st of the 4 Noble Truths, not from her suffering, but what she saw as suffering in her brother and sister's marriage. She stated that their suffering stemmed from the fact that the purchased things they could not afford. When the 3rd Turn of the Wheel came around, someone stipulated that their suffering is caused by living in America. Now I'm no uber-American, but for some reason this steamed me a little. How dare she live in America and benefit off of its style, and then turn around and critique it for being materialistic? But the more I thought about it, the less convinced I was of my own or any arguments regarding this issue. So I thought it best to present it to the Board, not as an assignment, nor as one of my typical rants, but as an open opinion topic. So I will put up several considerations and I would like for any or all of you to come up with an opinion on the topic and respond as you see fit.

Materialism, or, the American Self Script

Base Consideration/Definition:
-What is Materialism?
--Is materialism the desire of wants after the acquisition of needs?
--What are needs? (Maslow?)

Thought: American's are selfish, materialistic, and greedy.

-Is this accurate?
-Is this characteristic of America as a whole?
-Is this thought specific to America?
--If not, is it specific to similar cultures?

Consideration: Is materialism a historic anomaly?

-Meaning, can you consider materialism throughout history, or is it a byproduct of modern life?
--If it is an abnormality, why has it occurred?

If, in conclusion, America is materialistic...

-Is that inherently negative?
-What are the benefits?
--How has this positively affected our society and culture?
-What are the drawbacks?
-How would we be better off if we were a more giving nation?

So that's it for the considerations. Feel free to add anything, as this is certainly a nonconclusive list. Likewise, subtract anything you see as dispensable (although I do feel all those considerations and thoughts are essential). I look forward to your feedback.

Ryan's 10 Favorite Historical Episodes

2006-01-21T22:04:00.000-06:00

10) ca. 1938-1944 AD. On two separate occasions, Nazi secret forces campaigning to recover ancient artefacts of power, are foiled by archaeologist and modern-day swashbuckler Junior (Indiana) Jones.

9) 1763 AD. Immanuel Kant, enrapt by Jay Jay Rousseau's recently published work Emile, forgets to pick up the laundry - at his regularly scheduled time - one spring morning in sunny Konigsburg. Townspeople panick!

8) 1943 AD. The Skunk Works are established in Burbank, California.

7) Fall 2000 AD. During a moment of prolonged silence, Cole Murdock mutters, perhaps a little too loudly, "balls deep" during a Charles Page Academic Team match.

6) 1519 AD. Shiftless and idealistic adventurer Hernando Cortez dreams of life 'outside the big city' while staring across the palm trees and beaches of Cuba.

5) Date unknown. The concept of the Shrike is first considered by Dan Simmons.

4) 1892 AD. Micah K. Philipopaulos, a Cyprot Jew and dock worker, for reasons unbeknownst to his family, breaks a long standing tradition as he names his firstborn son Phillip. Years later, in the early 1980s, and half a world away in Tulsa, Oklahoma, history rectifies Philipopaulos' gross hubris when his great-great-grandson Phillip Phillips IV, through perseverance and integrity, restores the family tradition with the birth of his first son.

3) Winter 2004 AD. While watching "Max," I laugh at the director's (responsibility suspect) notion that the Holocaust and scourging of Europe arose from one moment in which an overly sensitive painter - A. Hitler - closes his heart to kindness, when stood up by an art promoter who was coincidentally murdered en route to their appointment by a war band of zealous (and perhaps drunken) National Socialists Hitler had empassioned only hours earlier.

2) 1187 AD. Salah-ad-Din (re)captures Jerusalem.

1) 480 BC. Approximately 300 Spartan warriors, under King Leonidas, commanding a garrison of 7,000 Greeks, manage to repel - even if temporarily - a Persian invasion force under Xerxes I at Thermopylae. After the battle, while preparing burial rituals for the slain defenders, family and friends notice strange markings and alien wounds inflicted upon the dead bodies. Curious bits of crimson fur litter the battlefield. Later it was discovered the Greeks fought, remarkably and valiantly, against Persian steel at their throats and foxes at their bowels (without saying a word).

Honorable Mentions:
-1984
-Sometime 2003 AD. Stewart (or 'Sturt') decides after much insistence and deliberation, that it should most certainly be done 'with a twist.'

ecriture

2006-01-16T21:30:00.000-06:00

Some silly people decided that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to writing, so with my moderate amount of power I've decided to fix the readership's attention on some basic issues of verbal expression.

I'd like to call attention to my title, ecriture. This, of course, means writing in French. Why, you might wisely ask, would I choose to use a French word when its English cousin is perfectly adequate and easier to grasp? There are a number of possible reasons: I thought "writing" was boring; I'm trying to prove I know some French; I like the idea of ostracizing my readership; I need to display my merit badge of a liberal college education; I really like Sartre. It's also possible that I have some fancy underlying meaning, which will only become apparent after you, the reader, spend some time unraveling the clever knot I have tied. Perhaps.

However, more often than not, the culprit in this situation is one of the first three reasons listed. Of those, our imp of the perverse usually manifests itself as the second or third. Note the obscurity that begins to overtake my clarity, as I both discuss abstractions and abstract myself further from them. Quite quickly you find yourself in a tornado of virtual non-meaning.

While I've demonstrated a number of undesirable textual situations, word choice is the one I want to draw your attention to. At this point, you can either read the rest of this or go find yourself a copy of "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell; I won't say much that he doesn't say, and he says a great deal more (and says it a great deal better) than I will.

I'll make this as clear as I can: writing an obscure word proves nothing positive about your character. Using an obscure word over a common one proves nothing about your intelligence. However, the habit of misusing large, obscure words--of mispronouncing them, of misapplying them--demonstrates a great deal about the insecurity of your character and the looseness of your intelligence.

Unless of course you are trying to trick your reader. If that is your concern, if you enjoy spending mental energy writing badly so that your reader will leave with a headache, then go right ahead--contrary to what some suppose, your reader will not beam with admiration at the size of your vocabulary, unless he is rather dim.

Or perhaps you happen to be the government. If this improbable situation is the case, first of all, let me say, hello, welcome to the blog, not really sure what you're doing here, most of us aren't very happy with you. Second, if you are the government, then verbal trickery is one of your specialties, and might be a necessary tool of your trade. Proceed.

If, on the other hand, you are an idealist, someone who, as often happens with those blessed with a liberal education, hates elitism, loathes the wealthy, and believes in some version of the Marx's proletarian revolution, then WHY WHY WHY would you choose to write with the largest and most disgustingly obscure and marginal words possible? Why would you, the anti-elitist, set up a hierarchical relationship between you and your reader as soon as possible? Why do you, O liberal minded philosopher, choose to preserve and maintain the same metaphysical and political relations between people that have endured for thousands of years? If your goal is to empower the disenfranchised, why do you make it impossible for them to gain anything from reading you?

Your answer will of course be something along the following lines: "there are words in Greek, Latin, French, German, and Russian that have no equivalents in English, and so unfortunately I must employ them." To this I respond, we all know that the Eskimos have twenty or thirty words for snow, that the Greeks have three or four words for love, etc. You're such a good multiculturalist. Have a cookie. While you eat your cookie, consider how you will define these terms for your readers so they will have some idea what you are talking about. If you cannot, then you are not competent to use the terms; if you "can," I will not be surprised if you misuse them, as this seems to be the usual state of affairs, and that still doesn't make it the best word.

I can talk about Bush's hamartia, or I can talk about Bush's arrogance, his narrowmindedness, his refusal to accept reality. Which alternative carries more weight? Which conveys something to the greater number of potential readers? And although it is nice to compare Bush to Oedipus or Achilles (actually it does them a disservice), which descriptors actually say something relevant and vivid about now, about Bush, about our political situation?

Don't get me wrong; it's delightful to sprinkle one's writing with terms from philosophical and literary theory. I try to make a regular habit of it. But from a simple rhetorical standpoint, it is simply silly to contradict your message with the form of your delivery--and this happens in the majority of class oriented manifestoes.

Then of course there is the globally misunderstood impact of curse words. Argument not strong enough? Call that guy a bitch! Everybody falls in line. And it's funny to be crass. After a while this gets old, and you look sloppy and vapid. A crazy drunk poet, one whom we might expect would encourage cursing in prose or poetry, once told me that curse words are lazy; they allow the writer to avoid actually saying anything. It's the equivalent of reaching the end of a sanctioned debate and then punching your opponent in the face.

Word choice of either form signifies the same thing--you have very little to say, you are concerned with your masculinity, and you have something to prove. And since you say next to nothing and most of what you do say is incomprehensible, the only person you've proven anything to is yourself.

Here it is, in all its bare-bones glory: stop waggling your penis in people's faces and actually consider your audience. The writer's goal ought to be communication, not masturbation. If you want to inflate your ego, a multitude of other media and activities surround you.

Fuck! Veritas! Shit! Gynocriticism! Mazarinades!

I feel more convinced already!

EINFUHLUNG

2006-01-06T00:26:00.000-06:00

Pat Robertson is a tool. No tool doesn't really work for what I'm trying to say. What word does...hhhmmm. Oh yeah, evil human being hits the spot.

Pat Robertson is an evil human being. He actually might be the most evil type of human being. He gives up this positive facade of devout holiness while supporting and proposing some of the worst agendas possible. I'm sure you all heard about his ON AIR call for the assassination of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez back in August. Now he's gone and done something equally...man I can't think of a good enough word. Stupid? Ignorant? Hateful? Close-minded? I'm gonna stick with evil. On air Pat Robertson essentially stated that God caused Sharon's brain to stop getting blood and oxygen from his heart. This was apparently God's punishment for Sharon "dividing God's land."

I find it really horrible that a supposed man of God and leader of a Coalition of Christians would not only put words into God's mouth (he actually said Woe), but would also attribute someone's health failure to it. Horray for free speech (and beer), but what's the point? Does anyone watch the 700 Club? Does Patty Roberto hold any sway with viewers? Will ABC Family stop funding this nonsensical political crap? Will Earl ever complete the 200+ tasks on his list or will the show be cancelled first?

Whatever Pat. I'm sick of you and Falwell and many many other jackasses. Opinions?

the getters gamble

2005-12-25T00:13:00.001-06:00

First and foremost, there is no reason for the accompanying picture. I simply found out how to insert pictures and decided to do so. Did you expect any less? The Triple-Tech portrayed is called Arc Impulse (an attack with an ice slash) and is my favored end-all technique. However, the streak of flame shown should actually be ice, as that is Marle's element (fire is Lucca's). It requires Crono, Marle, and Frog to know the Single-Techs Spincut (4mp), Ice 2 (8mp), and Leap Slash (4mp) respectively. But who doesn't know that? Now then...

In my 23 years here on this planet, I've had double that in birthdays, Christmas's, and random other times that you might get gifts; "Jesus died in a horrible fashion today. Have a Han Solo action figure." As a direct result, I've come into possession of a lot of crap (which some of you know as stuff), some of it good crap and some of it bad crap. The good gifts were generally those you saw and pointed at and rolled around on the floor in front of until you were appropriately beaten by said parent (None of that time-out nonsense. We were real kids dammit!). The bad gifts were a combination of ignorance...

("I don't know what to get Chris. I bet he'd like a purple sweater that his mother will make him wear to school where his peers will tease him until he cries. Or maybe a book. Yes, 8 year olds enjoy reading books. Especially long ones without pictures.")

...and cheapness.

(Scootypuff Sr. versus Scootypuff Jr.; G.I. Joe versus G.I. Hank; Lite Brite versus knitting)

After awhile you become aware that you stand a much better chance of opening something you actually want on the morning-of if you just tell your loved ones what you want. Otherwise you run the gambit of the curtain which could have anything behind it (invincibility, world domination, the Batman Animated Series Season 3) but runs the chance of being a bust: "Oh. A turtle neck. Thanks Grandma." And while Adam Gilberts life was changed forever, the rest of us were just disappointed. This year the guncat actually made a list of the items he wanted, what they are (game, book, etc.), where to find them, and how much they cost. Yes, chriskonkey will purr contentedly this 25th.

But where’s the surprise? Wasn’t the surprise a big part of what made the holiday great when we were wee lads? To lay eyes on a bunch of shiny packages in different sizes and shapes and nearly mess yourself with anticipation of what could be in yonder Transformer paper? Think of those times when you unexpectedly received a gift that you truly cherished. Were they not much more memorable moments? It’d be cool if you could go to someone who could read minds and find out what the perfect gifts would be, yet Mantis died at Shadow Moses and Xavier is out chasing a white whale only to find a gray thinky whale.

I guess what I’m getting at is this: would you want someone to get you a gift cause you asked for it or because they knew you well enough to get it for you, knowing this is a rarity?

Also, according to my clock, merry Christmas, Aldies.

-Mowr!-

LHP musing about MTG

2005-12-16T16:06:00.000-06:00

My brain's been thinking on something of late: whatever happened to the casual Magic? There was once a time, in the ancient past, when we would get together and play Magic for fun. Now, enraged Magic players, I do not mean to say that Type 2 constructed can't be fun, but it isn't really the same thing in my estimation. Allow me to make a list, because that's apparently what we do now.

- I've got this deck ...: When we first started playing Magic, we would make decks from what cards we had. We made new decks when we got new cards, we integrated sets willy nilly. Fun was had. When someone would step up and say "I've got this deck idea," it meant that he looked through his cards, maybe got new cards, and had some idea perhaps a crazy combo and put something together to mess around with, get a feel for how the deck works. Now, Magic online brings right to our e-doorsteps the most effective decks. Yes, we make our versions of decks, but we don't make truly original decks anymore. "But LHP," you say, "what's this 'original' jibber-jabber you're talking? There's only so many cards in the set, etc." Variations on existing decks, combinations read about online, are less creative than something constructed by you, out of the cards you have direct access to.

- A Friendly Game: We don't seem to play for the fun of playing anymore. If we play when we are just hanging out, it isn't "playing a game," it's testing a deck, fine-tuning a tweaked version of a competitive deck so that come Tuesday or Friday, it has a better chance of winning. Magic is a means to victory, to win more Magic cards, to build the newer decks, ad infinitum. There's a reason we don't make truly original decks anymore. What's the point in trying to play an original deck against one that has been concieved of by Magic "professionals" and reconstituted for the sake of Type 2 play? Winning isn't everything, but why bring a soapbox racer to the Indy 500? Casual Magic, for all intents and purposes, is dead to us now.

- Moving on Up: We can talk about sophistication for a bit. We've evolved beyond the silliness of that unstructured play, tournament Magic gives a stricter format and a chance for a more competitive environment. Your talk of casual Magic is regressive, LHP; we've gone from playing basketball in the driveway to playing for a league, why go back? I can see that perspective, but I guess I'm making a "love of the game" arguement. Part of the game is making a deck, trying to come up with something fun/cool/powerful, and how removed are you from that process when you have to put together one of a handful of decks to remain competitive?

-Spreading the Love: A bit off topic, but roll with me. There are those reading this, many on the Board, who aren't Magic players. I think it's hard to attract someone to the Magic without casual Magic. If you found someone you thought might be interested in Magic and said "Hey man, I'm going to Friday Night Magic, I think you should come. [now, you have either] a) I'll let you play one of my decks. or b) Read X articles online and find something you like and we'll try to get it together (where X is the number of tapped articles)." Option a) cuts out the fun and understanding that comes from deck construction and option b) seems like a lot of homework for someone with a passing interest. How does someone get interested in Magic, and have any fun getting into it, without casual Magic?

-More than one way: Yes, I can draft. I can play sealed tournaments (though those are pretty much just pre-releases). But, those are limited, you have to pay out quite a bit for cards (and occasionally wake up sinfully early on a Saturday). If there is no casual Magic environment, what is the point of owning the cards if one doesn't want to play Type 2 in a Type 2 group of people? (NO, you cannot have my cards)

I don't really have a "point" as such. Just thought I'd throw that out to the Magicians, who all cringed when they saw me refer to them as "Magicians." Anyway you like your Magic, may the magic of the holiday (fully secularized and politically correct) be with us everyone.

christmas at the zoo

2005-12-08T00:08:00.000-06:00

As the newcomer to this blog, I would just like to make my presence felt with a short rant. Why is it that every year people in Oklahoma act like they've never encountered snow? The cool- "Wwwwwull,-I'm-a-truck-man"-types drive like their motorized bobsled is on fire, seemingly trying to dodge the oncoming white flakies. Hitting too many of these "flakies," of course, would cause irreversible damage to their sa-weet truck. Then, of course you have the hundreds of people who invade wal-mart and other grocery stores as if we're going to be snowed in for a fortnight. All traffic, commerce, and world activity will come to a halt....because there's snow in Oklahoma. Gotta love it. Also, I can't wait to venture to work in the conditions tomorrow with the aforementioned "truck man," who will no doubt be out and about in full force tomorrow.

Aside from dealing with travel in winter conditions, winter is probably my favorite time of the year. Yes, it's cold; but there's just special something in the air that makes it different and enjoyable. Maybe it's the hope of good sledding, hanging out with friends, and..........REVENGE!!! (more on that later)

In conclusion, I know most of us are big music fans. To me, there are some albums that just strike me as "winter" albums. I'm going to list a few of mine. Please feel free to throw in your winter albums as well.

Weezer - Pinkerton
Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness
Fiona Apple - When the Pawn...
Radiohead - Kid A/Amnesiac
Jimmy Eat World - Bleed American (January/February drives to Stillwater back in '02 anyone?)
Sigur Ros - ( )
Hope of the States - The Lost Riots

Repudiation

2005-12-07T21:59:00.000-06:00

ON THE EVE of my return to the region of the maroon people, I am struck by the recent down turn the blog has taken. The last 5 posts have been little more than lists, and their lazy authors have hidden the meaninglessness of their writing with "clever" postmodern references and quips. I admonish you, gentlemen, to remember our legacy. Recall the great moments in our blog's history. Look back upon our weighty conclusions. Consider that our blog has been a monument to collegiate excellence. December 5th's brief but disconcerting power play has made clear to me the finitude and fragility of our digital existence. Gentlemen, there are those out there that need our help, and, consequently, there are those out there who wish us harm. Let us not, in the throes of youthful indulgence, shirk our moral and intellectual responsibilities. Let us not be but a passing storm, but rather an Ice Age of vituperation against the blossoming springtime of ignorance. But above all, let us act before our time is up, so that, at the end of the story, all will name us heroes of the realm.

Pro: (Battle of) Tours

2005-12-06T15:25:00.000-06:00

Part One
Raise your weary head O Nature! It seems you all are only wont to destroy my good body and neglect the sustenance I have given. You do not bring me gifts, caress my form, nor praise my name; instead, you cry at every slight hiccup in the natural order, claiming 'whore!' and 'treason!'
I do not contest your accusations but rather aim to show the ultimate goal. Even you non-reductivists should be pacified.
Five reasons why Nature does not self-hate (leto, sorry for stealing your hyperlink thunder; actually, no i'm not. it's my thunder to begin with):

1) Randomized evolution takes time dearies. The 747 is not perfect first time 'round. There is bound to be a few misplaced cogs. Now permit me a few times through the scrapyard and you'll one day be satisfied.

2) For each instance of pain and annoyance you cite, I offer a positive counterbalance. To where, I ask, would Bill Shakespeare have sent his lovers, his criminals, kings, and fools if not to me? In my bower I held them; in my bower I will hold you. I am lush and green and fragrant. Apart from me you do nothing.

3) "What holds you up when the earth lets you down?
What holds you up when gravity's corrupted?
I hope atoms are enough, 'cause Eve sure ain't coming."

4) Perhaps my tornoadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, and foul mood have indeed harmed you. May I remind you what great pain we shall inflict upon our enemies, though:
a) Force of Nature + Armadillo Cloak = G. G. Allen
b) Force of Nature + Fling = Burn Piano Island, Burn
c) Force of Nature + Greater Good = Greatest Good
d) Force of Nature + Verdant Force + Child of Gaea = BOMBO

5) And lastly... Massive Attack: Radiation Ruling the Nation.

Part Two
I wanted to share this with someone. 'Someone' turns out to be 'all you a-men.' Last night (Mon. 5th), I snuck back behind enemy lines to return to T-Town (mind your foxholes better next time recruits). The purpose of my trip included a visit over to City Hall where I got to sit in court for a good while with 35-40 total strangers. We then paraded ourselves in front of a traffic judge (who reminded me a good deal of Bob Balaban), unwillingly expose our criminal offences to the curious world, and cast deplorable glances every which way: "I know I'm better than you Janice Johnson, or should I say fake-Tina Turner!!" I encourage everyone of you to dedicate this next week to a small traffic violation so you may share in my joy.
Secondly, while home I also had the privelige of undergoing that rarest of circumstances, aporia. While leaving S-S-Town I had to doubleback towards my house and so I made a turn, approaching the intersection of 4th and Lincoln (y'know the street you take leaving matt's house; the intersection in front of st. patty's). Remember, west-east traffic has no stop sign and they're good to go. North-south = stop signs. Me = approaching from west, trying to turn left. Lady to my left with a frosted over windshield (approx. 2 inches thick), pauses momentarily and then pulls straight ahead into the road as i'm trying to turn left. I panick. My judgment falters. In G-U-N quickdraw mode, I calculate my will to live versus my desire to turn left. I deliberated, demanding 'Left-Turn' explain itself to me. It, however, offered no worthwhile excuse; only breath wreaking of malt liquor and stained trousers. Abandoning my original plan, I instead zoomed ahead and turned back north a block farther down. Crisis averted.
I stand before you an alive and changed man.
"Thank God for grantin me this moment of clarity..."

5 Stupid things Nature does to Good People, aka, Itself. (Nature, you suicidal jerk.)

2005-12-05T01:28:00.000-06:00

1) It's not cool when you see a late movie, one that gets out after the last public bus leaves. It's also not cool when its 13 degrees outside. It's especially not good when it's been raining all day, and everything concrete or pavement or brick in your whole city is covered with about 3 millimeters of ice, and you have to skate home on your worn out Steve Maddens. O Nature, I don't have ice skates. I don't want to skate across icy bridges at 2:00 in the morning. Nature wanted to punish me for watching Aeon Flux, because the plants in that film are Abomination. And because Charlize Theron is Abomination. In a different way.

2) It's not cool that I have to leave my apartment to use my cellphone. It's much less cool that it rains a lot in Columbus. It's not cool at all when Nature tries to murder me with bolts of lightning just because I want to talk to people. Moral: be a hermit or be murdered with lightning.

3) Sooner or later, Nature's gonna getcha; sooner or later, Nature's gonna win. Long Hair Paul know's what I'm talking about. And if he doesn't, Nature's gonna get him.

4) It's not cool when Nature uses tornadoes to throw cows at Bill Paxton, inadvertently endangering Helen Hunt's life. British Petroleum there probably does need to get hit with a cow, especially after Thunderbirds, but Helen Hunt doesn't deserve that kind of treatment. Nature could've easily waited until Spy Kids, Vertical Limit, or Club Dread to beat him with cows. Incidentally, did you know that you can spell the plural of tornado with or without an 'e'? I went with the 'e'.

5) It's not cool when Nature flings two horrible hurricanes at the U.S. in one season. It's even worse that she sends female hurricanes. I mean, you'd think Mother Nature would be more sensitive to the depiction of women in American media. Way to be nurturing and supporting, Mama N. Give a sister a break.

The Five Stupidest Things Ever Uttered in a Classroom (The Darek Edition)

2005-12-02T13:58:00.000-06:00

So sometimes when I'm waiting for class to begin and I'm not blasting my eardrums with PodTunes, I listen in on conversations to see what stupid stupids I can hear. Sometimes, they even happen IN THE MIDDLE of class. Here are five of my favorites (in no particular order). And before you ask me, yes these are all true stories.

#1. SetUp - Two Frat boys griping about class.

Fratty #1. "Man I don't wanna go to class."
Fratty #2. "What class is it man?"
Fratty #1. "Botony."
Fratty #2. "Dude why the hell did you take botony?"
Fratty #1. "Cause I didn't want to take a science class."

#2. SetUp - My favorite fat lard of a Non-Traditional student in Early Western Civ making his typical ignorant/intolerant comment.

Fatty Non-Trad: "So why do Muslims believe in the Quran? I mean it doesn't even make sense."
(Wow...wow)

#3. SetUp - Drunk Bastards: Part 1

Drunkie #1: "Man I was so blazed last night. I don't even remember the party. It was so much fun."
(Now in case you're missing why that is dicronculous, how can you know it was fun if you don't remember? That's like saying, "The womb was so fun. I mean I don't remember it, but it was AWESOME!")

#4. SetUp - Kid who doesn't quite get it as soon as everyone else in EWC. So we're talking about the Crusades...

SlowKid: "Hey this is kinda like that movie Kingdom of Heaven."
Doc Rogers: "Uhhhh yeah...that movie was about the crusades..."
SlowKid: "What? Oh...ooooohhhhhh ok."

#5. SetUp - Perhaps my favorite story of all time. Drunk bastards: Part Duex

DB 2: "So I was at Josh's bachelor party last night and this bitch was bitchin at me because my car was blocking 2 parking spots. So Josh told her to park 3 spaces down so that she can walk off some of that 35 pounds of ass of hers. So I was like "YEAH!" But then Mark went down and moved my car so she could park and she was all like "Thank You"...so I pissed on her windshield."

So those are some of my favorites. Let's hear yours!

Clever Freshmen

2005-12-02T01:57:00.000-06:00

Here are some of the clever (lame) things freshmen--and students of ALL ages--devise to give themselves extensions.

1) Any number of vague personal issues: "my family is having problems"; "i had to pick up my car, and your class was the only time i could do it"; "my computer overheated and i had to have some geeks restore my hard drive"; "when i restored my hard drive i realized i didn't have the registration disk for my printer."

2) In a similar vein, technical ineptitude (subterfuge): "I don't know why the attachment was empty, I uploaded my paper"; I couldn't open your email"; "my disk with the paper on it stopped working"; "I don't know why the last eight attachments I sent you were empty; maybe I'm doing something wrong"; "I was using Works (who the shit still uses Works??) and then I started on another computer with Word and it screwed it up"; "you have to upload attachments? what?"

3) Low tech subterfuge: "I couldn't find your office"; I couldn't find your mailbox"; "I couldn't find your building"; "I swear I put it in your mailbox; somebody must have STOLEN it!"; I thought I was supposed to email it to you in an attachment..."

Consider: is your beer addled brain really that much cleverer than mine? I mean I know I'm just some schmuck who "can't make it in the real world," but is this crap how people really do succeed?

Also consider: just because I don't call you out on your unoriginal ploys doesn't mean I won't fail your sorry ass.

Walking

2005-11-27T21:43:00.000-06:00

1) When walking through an open door, don't decide to walk through the middle when there is someone clearly trying to go the other way. It smacks of royalism, something our fathers fought hard to rid us of.
2) Try to at least approximate the same speed as everyone else, unless of course you are handicapped or old. Surely you can ponder existential matters, aporiai, or the completeness of your political superiority somewhere besides Target. Speed up.
3) Don't walk far away from those you are walking with, forcing other pedestrians to walk between you; others may suspect a violent trap, and the flow your conversation is sure to be disrupted. Where my homies at? Preferably not more than three feet away.
4) Pick a side and stick to it; if someone else wants that side, don't let up. Let them move. The alternative is everyone weaving back and forth like namby-pamby drunks.
5) When walking with an umbrella--
a) Don't walk more slowly than usual just because you have an umbrella. This is extremely irritating to those that don't have umbrellas and want get out of the rain and to their destination.
b) Pay attention to your umbrella. Negligence can cause eye injuries, neck injuries, etc.
c) If you have an umbrella, do not walk under awnings when someone else doesn't have an umbrella. This is un-Christian, un-American, and rude.
6) Don't elect to hold the door open for everyone in sight. It makes a spectacle out something which should be simple and unobtrusive. It also makes you look like some kind of faux courtier. Chivalry is dead; don't Weekend at Bernies the poor guy.

'roids = death penalty?

2005-11-18T15:27:00.000-06:00

So I was listening to the TV yesterday and heard something quite interesting. They were discussing MLB's new policy on steriod abuse. One person was advocating a "death penalty" punishment where if a player was caught using steroids, then he was out of the league. My first reaction was to think that that was an extremely harsh punishment. On a second glance, I feel like the players have an incredible amount of influence in our society that MLB needs to tighten up their punishments.

Selig and the owners ratified the new "three stikes and your out" (ironic, eh?) policy the other day. While the common sense part of me is saying that this is a very fair punishment system (50 games for 1st offense, 100 for 2nd, and we'll Pete Rose your ass for the third), the rest of me just wants to see how the capital punishment system would work. It might just wake up all those high priced players to what the game was really meant to be. And you never know, maybe then I might see my Royals in the World Series again...

2005-11-17T16:23:00.000-06:00

"The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years ... Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Chuck Hagel, (R-NE)

respond to that, Bush lovers.

The Anthropic Fakery

2005-11-16T16:19:00.000-06:00

So following this is a quickie response I wrote up regarding a student's comments on the Anthropic Principle for a class discussion. In the snappy retorts, I will post documentation from the Principle detailing its basic argument and data. Forgive the paper's "shambliness," since I wrote it as a guide and not a final product. My basic assertion is that believers use existing data to find a meaning or first source for life, namely a 3A God. I assert that this data points to many other ideas, and is not concrete evidence for a creator. So, what do you all think...?

"The Anthropic Principle compiles data about the universe and presents us with the seemingly impossibility of life’s existence in this universe. The goal or result of this research and data is the claim or view that the universe has opened up in such a way that life seems to have been the goal. Also, the unfolding was set in such a way that so-called “observers” would be formed. They show this by giving “cosmic constants” which are detailed facts about the make-up of the universe. If any of several constants were minutely different, the universe could not exist in the fashion it does today. This, of course, means life could not exist at all. They also list twenty-four parameters that must be fixed in place for the universe to exist with life in it. The Anthropic Principle takes these details and information and combines them with our knowledge of the big bang. This combination leads them to the claim that the universe was cosmically designed by an omnipowerful being, in most cases God.

Firstly, we can avoid delving to deep into the scientific jargon by accepting their listed cosmic constants and the twenty-four fixed parameters of the universe. These all seem scientifically sound and although my scientific knowledge is better than average, it still falls quite short of contesting this information. Another point of agreement is that the universe seems not to support life, in that if the factors were not just so, life could not exist. The difference is that I believe that with all these variables and changing constants, it appears that the universe as we know it has no plan or desire (if we were to personify it) for the existence of life in any form, not just as we know it.

My main disagreement comes in the assignment of creation. While believers in the Anthropic Principle cite a cosmic creator of some sort ordering the universe in a way that supports life, my inference is in the seeming randomness of life at all. When you look at all of the variables that must be ordered exactly, it seems (and is) highly unlikely that life could form. This does not point me to any sort of intelligent design. If a creator was interested in life existing in the universe, what benefit is there to: #1 starting the universe from a bang instead of complete concrete creation, and #2, making life so impossible that it requires several fail-safes to be overcome. Essentially the universe is inhospitable to existence (for whatever reason), thus making it meager and short lived. What purpose is there in this for a 3A God? If there were a creator with complete control over the universe, what point is there is making a universe that seems to hate or not want life? A simple example of this would be the destruction of earth. We have already isolated a comet that is on a path to collide with earth in 2029. And why does life seem to want to kill life? A necessary part of human existence is the killing and consuming of other organisms. This exists from the simple bacteria all the way up to the “glory” of mankind. No, these do not point to an ordered structure of life. Instead they point to a fluke or flaw in the universe. The Principle’s Point #5 claims that “The random coalescing of several unrelated factors necessary for life someplace in the universe is highly improbable.” This, in fact, supports the flaw theory. I find more likely that the Anthropic Principle is making the mistake of assigning meaning where there is none. They focus on the one instance we know of where life does exist instead of the infinite number of instances where life does not exist. Instead of looking at the entirety of universal existence, they choose only to focus on life. Since life has been rejected by the universe countless more times than it has been available, this shows a flaw. When doing data research, when a data set or result contradicts the majority of the rest if data, it is seen as unreliable or untestable data. That is what we see here. The existence of life rejects the universal standard and constantly deals with flaws and the possibility of it own demise. This contradicts any sort of intelligence behind the design."

Fin

Potluck Social

2005-11-09T23:58:00.000-06:00

What we have here is a two-part post. The topics are unrelated but both happened to be on my mind as I started typing. I'll let you know when gears have switched; you let me know if I've dropped my transmission. Flag girls: ready.....set....

"Jo-Jo was a man in Tucson, Arizona," or The Set-Up
So I'm over visiting a friend who is 1) an R.A and 2) on call. Few more friends come over and suddenly we get a quick game of 10-point pitch going. In walks a group of underclassmen to harass and bother us all in good fun. Now mind you, these aren't lame underclassmen as we'd might expect, y'know, the types socially antithetical to us - the athletes, the wiggers. These guys are lame 'cause they're socially awkward. I ask one of them, whom I saw over the weekend when I stopped at a record store, what he purchased. After his answer the underclassmen turn the conversation towards Classic Rock (blessed be its name) in order to 1) stroke themselves and 2) irritate my friend/R.A. who they accuse of liking 'modern music.'

"Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection" or The Disgust
Outta nowhere some handjack says something along the lines of 'well we all know that it doesn't get any better after Dylan and the Beatles and Floyd and Zeppelin,' and then goes on to say the dreaded words any aesthete fears, 'cause they accomplished it all.' Now dear friends I'll report to you what I sez to him, "that's an incredibly reductionist view. If we accept that then we're believing there is only a finite amount of objects the artist can talk about or a finite amount of modes in which he can perform." To which the guy argues 'so what.' The problem with that argument and anyone indoctrinated by their parents vinyl collection and Star 103-misted-eyes, or who thinks music reached its critical apex somewhere around Exile on Main Street, is she's self-defeating. The argument is predicated on some premise that wants to say, 'these guys worked with completely novel ideas since they were the first rock 'n rollers.' When pressed though, the argument folds. What constitutes rock 'n roll? Is it the instruments? Is it the structure? The subject matter? (I'm not making some puerile point, 'well...uh...the Beatles didn't invent the guitar so they have to pay their debts to Mr. Fender or Don Takamine or random-Gypsy). No. Classic rock is not novel because it inherits an already active tradition from two primary sources. On one hand, we have the blues influence. Catch any Behind the Music (do they still show that?) and you'll see any Brit from that era talking about their infatuation with everything black. On the other hand lies what I consider the twee aspect of Beatlemania, descended from a few upstarts like...oh, Buddy Holly or even Motown. Here I'm pointing out the the previous existence of 'pop,' or mainstream music.
So what we have here in short is the argument that some of those outstanding patriarchs might actually have been hybridizing preexisting elements so as to solidify Rock's unique character. Now if the underclassman-pietist grants, 'okay maybe they weren't entirely original in everything,' his argument folds. One must then grant equal creedence to music through the succeeding decades as capable of improving and hybridizing some of those earlier elements or forsake the standard by which he finds Classicism worthwhile.

"Red are the arms of luxuriant chairs and you won't know a thing 'till you get inside" or 'Live at Red Rocks'
By now everyone's probably heard about and concluded their opinions on these Intelligent Design-Curriculum court cases in Kansas and Pennsylvania. I will not dally long on this issue and I do not intend for us to get swept up in the creationism or evolution debate. I just caught a quick headline which lured me in further. As I understand it, community parents filed a lawsuit prohibiting a teacher or teachers from reading a statement which cast Darwin in a less than favorable light and implied students should consider other theories. Now certainly, the theory the questionable statement wants its audience to pursue is Intelligent Design but, as reported, these parents are enraged that an educator or some thinker is suggesting the student not take the evolutionary argument (or any argument presumably) prima facie. Do parents get pissed when Bynum calls Isaac Newton a pervert or questions his physic? For that matter does anyone get angry when you merely critique the soundness of an argument? Other than the fundamentalists, no. But wait...these parents are certainly exhibiting some fundamentalist-like behavior in their uproar. Why are they defending the scientific doctrine(s) dogmatically?
My conclusion: anyone manifesting dissatisfaction is a dogmatist. 7GG + Tooth and Nail = G.G. Allen.

Help Save English ... for the children

2005-11-03T03:36:00.000-06:00

This is ridiculous. Our politically correct ways are destroying the English language. No longer can we use the word "he" for a person, the generic person (if you will), because our nasty, gendered pronoun is exculsionary. So people have to create fumbly substitutes like "he/she," which confuses conversation and just sounds bad. Or even worse, people bastardize "they" and "their," using the plural to stand for "he/she," (I'm proposing) to allow for plural sexes in one being, which is absurd. I feel we Aldermen can use the power of the Blog to create a language revolution: the gender neutral, English third person pronoun.

The singular form "Sheh" is pronounced with a subtle yet still slightly James Brown-esque "heh."
Example: Sheh is a tightrope walker.

I'm especially fond of the objective form "hem," because it stinks of equality; one shared letter and one letter from each of the gendered pronouns.
Example: The building supervisor needs to consult hem.

The possessive form is "hes."
Example: Those are hes satsuma oranges.

The reflexive form is "hemself."
Example: The police officer puts hemself in danger on a daily basis.

I realize there may be some problems with this system and my examples may desire some relevance, but you get the picture. I think if we as a society are going to insist on gender equality in everything, so much that we cannot accept so disgusting an idea as using the pronoun "he" when we are not sure of a person's sex, then we as English speakers need a gender neutral pronoun for all cases. I'm throwing out a solution to the problem, but will it take? If not, is there a better solution?

Right-to-die: Individual Rights, States' Rights, and Fundamentalism Collide!!!

2005-10-24T21:56:00.000-05:00

Gonzales v. Oregon.

More than a right-to-die case, this case is the wedge between classic conservatism and neo-conservatism. To neo-conservatives, it's a pseudo-religious thing that I can't explain because I don't speak Crazy. To old-school conservatives, it's a clear cut case of state's rights: state makes law not clearly defined in Constitution, Fed raises off deeez nuuuts. To Libertarian-stylie conservatives, it's an individual rights case: It's my body and no government's going to have any say about it.

At least that's the way I see it. If they persist with these types of battles, Republicans should watch their backs or true conservatives might rise up and stab them in 2006. I'd venture to guess that personal crusades like the one Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is undertaking here get tiresome for true conservatives at some point.

Beyond the politics of this case, I think people should have the right to die when they choose if they are terminally ill without jumping through the several hoops the "Death with Diginity" law in Oregon requires (After taking all the steps one must go through to be deemed ready for death under that law, one might either already be dead or have lost any chance of dying with dignity, if you ask me). It's your body, do with it as you may.

Wilde and Crazy, Kids

2005-10-19T00:00:00.000-05:00

I recently read "The Decay of Lying" by Oscar Wilde. Imitation of Platonic form, general foppishness, and dandyisms aside, he makes a very interesting claim: "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life. This results not merely from Life's imitative instinct, but more from the fact that the self-conscious aim of Life is to find expression, and that Art offers it certain beautiful forms through which it may realize that energy" (846).

This claim is supported with a definition of Nature and an example of the fogs in London:

Consider the matter from a scientific or metaphysical point of view, and you will find that I am right. For what is Nature? Nature is no great mother who has
borne us. She is our creation. It is in our brain that she quickens to life. Things are because we see them, and what we see, and how we see it, depends on the Arts that have influenced us ... One does not see anything until one sees
its beauty. Then, and only then, does it come into existence. At present, people see fogs, not because there are fogs, but because poets and painters have taught them the mysterious loveliness of such effects. There may have been fogs for centuries in London. I dare say there were. But no one saw them, and so we do not know anything about them. They did not exist till Art had invented them. 840-841

Forgiving the lengthy quotations, I submit this topic to the Board. To some extent, I agree with what Wilde is saying; our perception of the world around us is informed by our own perspectives, which are in turn affected by what we have been exposed to, be it Art or Crap. But what of the claim that Nature “did not exist till Art had invented [it]”? Is Wilde exaggerating to make a point? Is the point valid at all? Is his whole position back-asswards? There be a veritable cornucopia of topics floating around there. What'cha think, fellow Aldeys?

Work Cited

Wilde, Oscar. "The Decay of Lying." The Longman Anthology of British Literature: Second Compact Edition, Volume B. Ed. David Damrosch, Susan Wolfson, et al. New York, Pearson Education, 2004.
(Forgive non-strict MLA spacing; program not cooperating)

On Country Music, an Opinion

2005-10-12T15:44:00.000-05:00

This should probably go on my personal blog, but I want to get opinions on it. So it may appear on both.

If I could write a note to country music it would read a little something like this...

"Dear Country Music,
I don't like you. Could you please get out of my face and stop ruining perfectly decent musical elements? Thanks."
-Darek
P.S. Don't let you dog crap on my lawn anymore. That's not cool."

So it's no secret, I don't much care for country. I find it repetitious and annoying to say the least. I respect its fan as far as I can, but I honestly cannot see why they enjoy it. I can see why people enjoy Fall Out Boy, Marilyn Manson, and even showtunes, yet country escapes me. I ran an off the cuff poll of country fans some months back to see what it was they enjoyed. None of them could give me a concise answer. Doesn't bode well for a correlation between country music and intelligence (tongue and cheek...tongue and cheek). Regardless, I feel that country takes certain musical elements with tremendous potential and somehow crams them into and unworkable and unpleasant formula. It's kinda like the swastika...go with me on this ride ok?

Now it's no secret that the swastika was not invented by the Nazis. It has existed as long as any symbol known to man. To the Chinese, it's the Wan, to the English, fylfot. The Germans know it as the Hakenkruez and the Indians (Gandhi not Squanto) call it the Swastika. And even the Greeks have their tetraskelion and gammadion. The Native American squadron in WWI flew under this symbol and it represent(ed) peace in India. But after official symbolic adoption by the Third Reich, this ancient sign cannot be used without brining to mind a horrible time in human history.

Now I'm not saying that country music is the Third Reich or that country fans are mindless Nazis...well I guess I kind of am. But that is NOT the point. I'd just appreciate it if steel guitars, a voice with some twang, or fiddles could be used for musical goodness without bringing to mind the pain and mind-numbing feeling of popular country is all. I suggest listening to a little tiny bit of Ryan Adams to experience these elements in proper tasty fashion.

Apologies to country music fans.

Where is everyone?

2005-10-08T23:18:00.000-05:00

Those Burger King Commercials are so funny in a horrifying way. I mean am I right or what...guys? Where is everyone!?!?!?!?

Tom DeLay's Xanga

2005-10-03T02:46:00.000-05:00

Listening to: If I had a Hammer
by: Pete Seeger and Lee Hays

OMG you guys...I don't know if ya'll heard, but I might be in trouble...see, this week, me and two of my BFF's, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis (I love you guys!!)something...the bad news is, we could go to prison for up to two years :( or be fined up to 10,000$$ :( :( ....but the good news is I get to not be majority leader for a while...yay...which means that Jim and John and I get to kick back and plan our defense...awesome!! so anyway, this weekend we all just hung out at my place and drank some beers and slammed on some democrats...fun times were had...Jim and John are a little worried about the press, but i told them, Scott McLellan's got our backs, and he never tells anybody anything...tee hee..we love you Scottie!! those democrats just make me so mad...nancy pelosi said we belong to a culture of corruption or something...but she's just an ugly atheist bitch...tee hee...good old Kevin Madden said it best..."This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat"...awesome Kevin!!! anway you guys, i better sign off...with all the work i have to do i better get some sleep...kiss kiss, hugg hugg...you'll hear from me soon!!!!

Potential New Topic: DeLay Indictment

2005-09-28T12:19:00.000-05:00

So Majority Leader Tom DeLay (and two other repubies) have been indicted for financial conspiracy charges. Now since I am posting this from the office and on the verge of a test, it may take me some time to properly post on this topic (not to mention my computer is literally sitting gutted on my floor being eaten alive by some Symantec killing virus). Please feel free to post away about your opinions, if you have any. I would suggest some repubie defend DeLay before some liber, um, ie (?) trashes him horribly. Let the posting begin!

Johnny-come-lately

2005-09-25T15:52:00.000-05:00

Cripers we've been busy! The three of you have most likely unwound your dilemmas and by now i'm the younger brother fresh from the womb begging for inclusion. I'll address first my previous engagements and then ask a few more questions.

Leto: yes, you guessed right in taking 'genealogy' as 'understanding' or 'world-view' but I intend something a little more concrete than that. The story an individual provides in order to explain the history of our world, institutions natural and artificial, and our psychology (is genealogy). Most like to believe that is what philosophy is, yet we see a noticeable difference.

Dean Shankman: I do not want to wander too far from your original assertion - the absurdity of ascribing logic to god's "acts" - but I think you touch upon a very important issue here. You state, "To say that men cannot possibly comprehend the reasons of god is really to identify god as illogical, insomuch as this thing we call reason is only defined by men who have used it and know what it is." Would it not be more appropriate to relegate God to the realm of a-rational in place of irrational? To say someone is ir-rational signifies that the subject operates within the logical apparatus but has somewhere gone astray in the process and thereby obtains a faulty conclusion. It speaks of a privation: the subject does have the capacity to reason but somehow fails. Arationality, on the other hand, better denotes a place outside the mechanism. This place outside might fit for God since, as omnipotent (if we're all willing to assert that), everything is self-evident. By self-evident I mean more than "all bachelors are unmarried men." Here, the conclusion is already present but needs to be divested of the predicate. Now I'm not stating this as the authoritative opinion, but it seems a safe analogy to think 'the conclusions are immediately known for God so that he never has to syllogize. The logical process never occurs and God (or such a creature) would, by our definition, be arational.

You rightly point out the inclusiveness of the disjunction at, "...and yet both ['swashbuckling' religion and 'cold-hard' science] can be true at the same time." However, although religion (or faith) amounts to nothing more than a feeling which science describes, how do we deal with science (or logic) itself? It becomes nothing more than a stimulation in our brain similar to the one observed when somebody prays. What I have in mind here is something along the lines of, even science is liable to assumptions (the scientific method, the principal of non-contradiction, the principal of causal-likeness). These assumptions would either be innate (rationalism) or not (as Locke would have us believe). Even in Locke's empiricism, one must suppose without doubt, the nobility of the sensory apparatus or in short, that we can get reliable information from the world in some way. Perhaps you are already aware of this. Perhaps you've made intimations in later posts of such a problem (your commentary on Greg's argument). Lastly I want to say that I'm not remonstrating or hoping to enlighten you, nor do I believe you're in full favor of scientism; yes, I'm aware of what you study.

(the) Darek: how do you fashion yourself a naturalist?

All: maybe you have lost taste for our discussion, maybe you're a passerby and repulsed by our internet-armchair philosophy. We've not delusions of grandeur but are dealing with the fact that ethics - in this case the treatment of Katrina - must answer to a philosophy of nature and metaphysics.

short response that doesn't require a Lewis Carroll quote

2005-09-23T22:32:00.000-05:00

to the esteemed dr. Shanks,

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

Maybe there's a difference between a basic kind of intuitive rationality and hardcore logic. That would help out my case a little bit.

But I think we both know I have no way of demonstrating intuitive rationality.

On the other hand, I could claim that the explicit and obvious rightness of my argument proclaims its intellectual honesty and purity--I do not subscribe to some form of intellectual slavery, but rather the Truth!!

But we both know that's crap.

I think the safest thing I can do is admit that that I have certain inescapable intellectual proclivities. Not only do I have them, but they pervade nearly all higher intellectual discourse. If this is the case, then I would say that my argument is the best argument possible given the current age's enslavement/commitment to certain thought patterns and vocabularies.

But that's pragmatic, and we both know how I feel about pragmatism.

This discussion has reached a stage where it is less like doing surgery on another person and more like doing surgery on yourself. Except you have to perform it with your bare hands. And you're working on your central nervous system.

Dr. Shanks, if you didn't understand the postmodern problem before, you have now run it down with a mac truck, one with naked women on the doors and Yosemite Sam on the mud flaps.

Don't Blame God, Blame The French!

2005-09-23T19:02:00.000-05:00

First post. Yayeee clapclapclap.

I'm not going to get into the debate about the logic of religion since I have long since forgotten the little I learned at an elementary age on the subject. Instead I will focus on what I know. I know this: New Orleans should not have been there in the first place.

Lets go back to 1718 (story time). Some French whose name I don't know, nor care to know, founds New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi River. I assume he is French since he named it after some French guy. Anyway, the French decide this is a pretty good location so they make it into a big port. They make lots of money and then we buy it from them along with the rest of the Louisiana purchase.

Now I don't know when people were able to determine elevations, but it was a long time ago. Well, the elevation of New Orleans is anywhere from five feet below sea level to 17 feet above sea level. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture? You have a city on the Mississippi River. You have a city on the Gulf of Mexico. Yet you continue to build on it below sea level?

I'm not going to look it up, but it seems like I heard that there were 30 foot surges. Okay city planner, it's possible for a hurricane to create a 30 foot surge, your city is at a maximum 17 feet above sea level, is this safe? Of course it is, we have levies. I don't know about you but if someone told me a surge was coming that was taller than my whole town I'd be worried. Levies my ass, this is a damn surge!

I also want to briefly applaud the civil engineer that designed the roof of the Superdome. Nice work...you son of a bitch.

And to top all this off, how in the hell did Mike Brown become the director of FEMA?!?! The guy was a lawyer for the better part of his career. Since when does a lawyer have any f'ing clue what to do for a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, etc? The best experience he "supposedly" had was being responsible for emergency services oversight in Edmond friggen Oklahoma. See this Time Article for the reason I said supposedly. Even if he was responsible for emergencies in Edmond, that was 30 years ago and Edmond was probably lucky to have tornado in the time span he worked there, much less category 5 hurricane on a city below sea level. Thumbs up to Dubya on that hire.

Basically it comes down to this: the French built it so they are responsible for the people who died in it. It's like putting a piece of candy over a well with a kid around. Of course they are going to try to get the candy. Well America got the candy but then they fell in the well.

questions to the darek and leto

2005-09-23T18:49:00.000-05:00

i generally agreed with both of your points and realized that a big chunk of my argument was based on a much larger idea that is not really appropriate for this blog, but i will address briefly in my comment to leto.

to darek first:
"Second, for the oppositionist view, I cannot see that faith should have no common ground with logic. Number one, theistic faith should be studied to determine why, for example, 69% of Americans claim that religion strengthens family values and moral behavior. America obviously raises us educationally under the Naturalist script, but we still see trends and streaks of religious faith everywhere. "

i'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. that religion does something, I'm sure is the case. if it makes people more moral, so be it... but i'm not seeing the connection between faith producing morality and a hypothetical morality (hypothetical because i'm neither suggesting it does or does not exist) that a person finds through logic. Especially with the term "moral behavior," your factoid could as easily suggest that faith makes people "blindly moral," such that they derive family values and morality entirely from a possibly illogical faith.

to leto second:
this is more a comment to your entire post in general, and forgive me if i've misinterpretted you (i'm not quite as familiar with modern philosophical terminology). if i've got the gist of what you're saying, the scientific explanation of the universe is just as metaphysical as the religious explanation. i would agree with your problems with using science as a dogma to impose theories like evolution on the unsuspecting masses, and even that being "scientific" is an easy way to scoff at and ignore metaphysical questions.

BUT, i feel like there's something very strange going on with the development of your argument, of starting from a place in which we already have a world and are at liberty to explain it, such that religion and science start from the same location chronologically. perhaps this is a ridiculously assuming argument--and tell me so if it's the case--but how can you even describe your argument, how can you even argue, without reason? how can language be formed without corresponding objects in the world? shouldn't it be taken into account whether or not logical progressions in thought necessarily have to predate religous abstractions?

i know i'm making several large jumps here, so maybe that's what feels so shakey about it. at the same time, your argument is strangely slippery and somehow creates a shield for itself, as if by giving a history of the two thoughts you've made it impossible to contradict without creating a new history... which i suppose is what i'm trying to do above. your argument, leto, is subtle like the aether.

"I said pig," replied Alice; "and I wish you wouldn't keep appearing and vanishing so suddenly; you make one quite giddy."

2005-09-21T23:54:00.001-05:00

The purpose of this post isn't so much to resolve the issues raised in the previous three (plus Longhair Paul's), but more an attempt to add another layer of critique. Also I hope to clean up some issues, if for no other reason than so that I can understand them better.

In response to Paul's initial question, "Has this sort of idea been prevalent throughout all of history and I'm just naive in assuming that people had generally stopped seeing angry gods behind the storm clouds?" I would say that there is only a small difference between that possibility and the "fringe wacko" possibility." The difference, I think, lies in epistemological priority rather than in veracity or even practicality.

The basic understanding that people are led to accept is that the "old" ways of explaining volcanoes and other disasters have been superseded by those of science; scientific explanations win because they are more practical and successful. What has been lost are the moral controls implicit in the religious explanation, because religious "proofs," tied to issues of human behavior and morality, are by the nature of religion more totalizing than those of science. In other words, science can't tell you how to live a moral life, while religion can. The problem with this is that many people don't believe that religion discovers moral imperatives so much as it creates them. On the other hand, science has not in fact created a more peaceful world--a goal that many scientists claim--at least without overt repression. One is led to believe that by accepting science and shedding "non-logical" modes of inquiry, we will somehow all calm down and see everything in a state of moral and social equality. This belief is certainly not a scientific one, but rather a socio-epistemological belief, and one that I would label as religious--it might be vaguely logical, but even with the pervasivenesss of scientific application throughout the world, it has not had any moralizing effect to speak of; fundamentalists are obviously excellent at employing science to meet their ends.

The sum of all that was to say that the science/religion dichotomy is a false one, created by covert religionists--perhaps that didn't realize they were behaving religiously--some centuries ago. Scientists and religionists enforce this dichotomy by insisting on fighting semantic battles about all sorts of issues, including evolution and intelligent design (as an aside, my opinion here is that scientific theories should not be taught as cold fact to begin with. "Teaching the controversy" should come with all scientific education, and perhaps with all education save perhaps mathematics and contemporary language. But I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that Intelligent Design is not science. The only motivation for including it in a science curriculum that I see is a cultural agenda that prioritizes its own truths over disciplinary solidarity, which may easily fit their bill. End aside).

To get back to the "angry gods/wackos" question, I believe that science has had success in the realm of explanation only in the view of those that accept it to more or less degree as a metaphysical discipline, by which I mean it excludes other explanations outside its own realm. To those that view it as a tool of power, such as fundamentalists terrorists, the common housewife, and pastor who uses Christmas lights to liven up his service, science has a strictly subservient role to religion. It is only in intellectual and pseudo intellectual circles--a large minority, true--that science acts overtly and "metaphysically." I posit the following, in a typically Foucaultian manner: science is prioritized as a means of explanation because its epistemological dominance better allows the flow of power through pluralistic cultures. This thesis does slightly problematize my previous claims, that religionists don't use science as a metaphysical "explainer."

The solution lies in defining what the pseudo intellectuals and intellectuals are doing. Rather than simply using science to explain their world, they are, as I said earlier, also using it to exclude other cultural ideologies. In the process of this metaphysical move, they take an intellectual step back from the situation, and in a typical move for those interested in theory, they create categories by which to better understand the situation, namely epistemological categories such as "scientific" and "religious". I don't think that within the theoretical realm that one can really prioritize one--though I know some on both sides disagree. But when these theoreticians step back into the real world, their everyday practicality enforces a prioritization based on short term success--science. This leaning on short term results is another phenomenon for another piece of writing.

To address Dr. Shanks's post, I would say that his is a scientific explanation of religious actions; since it restricts itself to human behavior this is a perfectly legitimate subject of scientific inquiry. I don't believe the argument about whether God is logical or not has really been sufficiently argued or resolved, but it is my opinion that Kierkegaard has it right on this one--proof is both both unnecessary and detrimental to a faith based "career". If one has a metaphysical acceptance of science as an exclusionary force, it would be fairly logical and rational to deny the majority of religious explanations for natural occurrences, and religionists, I think, shouldn't give a rat's ass. (None of this is to say that Dr. Shanks's use or commitment to logic is based on the prioritization of short term success that I mentioned earlier; I was merely speaking about the majority of people, and I'm sure that some have accepted logic and science in this role on much safer grounds.)

In response to Pale Rider's response, I have a question: in what sense are you using the term "genealogy"? Could one simply substitute "world-view" or "understanding"? I think it's more likely that you had a specific use of the term in mind; I could not find a definition that extended its use beyond "a list of kin relations," so I'm afraid I may not have fully understood your comments.

In regard to The Darek's post, I have two quibbles. I strongly disagree with your claim that "If, from a religious perspective, we mere mortals cannot know why it is someones time to die, then we should let it be. It seems completely feasible for a theist to leave it to faith and walk away." I think your assumption is that the only systematic interpretation of an event must be a logical analysis--in other words, that logical analysis is the only mode of inquiry worth pursuing. Mere acceptance of events within a faith-based understanding is the best course of action. However illogical it may have been, religious scholars and others spent a great deal of time assessing human behavior, historical events, and narrative texts in ways they deemed successful and that created foundations upon which to live as well as to continue studying. Repressing the explanatory drive in those not of a rational or logical positivist persuasion is a very insidious form of control indeed. I think another assumption implicit in your statement is that religionists accept the primacy of logical means to begin with, which they obviously don't or they wouldn't be making obviously illogical claims--by illogical I mean claims that appear to lead to a flimsy basis, rather than claims simply considered by themselves.

My second issue is with your final paragraph. In your "personal note," you question God's lack of reasoning and logic, when mere moments ago you said this was a waste of time. I do however recognize the difference between thoughtful, logical inquiry and a thoughtful, frustrated rant. Ahem.

I'm sorry for an typos I didn't catch--I wrote this pretty quickly--and I'm also sorry if anyone feels I conflated logic and science too much. I feel that that might be a problem. And someday I'll figure out how to write shorter posts. I'll probably return to this post a few times and fix some loose ends and explicate some assumptions.

RE: "in response to the blame game" discussion

2005-09-21T21:58:00.000-05:00

Admin Note - Check Post below this or comments on the original post for discussion up to this point.

There are two types of people in this world (as the analogy goes): those who approach knowledge religiously and those who approach it scientifically. I am well aware of my harsh generality, but I think that all of the Aldermen will fall into one of these two categories, even if not explicitly. I’m not sure of the percentage, but am not entirely convinced that the majority of Aldermen are religious…I personally do not consider myself religious. I consider myself a naturalist with a theistic upbringing. That being said, just a couple points of semi-relevance submitted for approval and/or biting criticism.

First, this is a heated discussion/argument. Problem is, you aren’t actually arguing anything at all…From what I have been taught, learned, and experienced of religion, logic and theistic faith cannot be argued. In fact, from a theistic standpoint, they cannot even be compared. Here I would tend to agree with Shanks proposal that “faith, in spite of all the efforts of all the Aquinas' in the world, has no business with logic” (Dr. Shanks, comment, para. 2). Now I am not saying reason and logic hold no place for a religious soul (especially for good Deists). But there certainly are aspects of the theistic religion you are adopting that force you to make leaps outside of what logic can explain. So at some point, you (the universal version, not the specific Alderman) have to allow something to exist outside of the realm of logic. Bolstering faith-based principles (such as God’s will for humanity, the existence and working of the Trinity, and why Mother Theresa chooses cinnamon based pastry as her means or post mortem communication) with these hidden logics does nothing for the non-believer except add a note of cynicism to further study. If, from a religious perspective, we mere mortals cannot know why it is someone’s time to die, then we should let it be. It seems completely feasible for a theist to leave it to faith and walk away. Trying to bring it to a logical head is, well, illogical.

Second, for the oppositionist view, I cannot see that faith should have no common ground with logic. Number one, theistic faith should be studied to determine why, for example, 69% of Americans claim that religion strengthens family values and moral behavior. America obviously raises us educationally under the Naturalist script, but we still see trends and streaks of religious faith everywhere. There must be a scientific or sociological reason why, and to abandon this to its own devices does not make a lot of sense. But then secondly, a certain amount of faith is taken in logical science every day. We comment on the purity of science and its empirical infallibility, but if someone could ACTUALLY explain to me how electrons pass through the nucleus of an atom instead of laying faith into something called “electron tunneling,” I would be more than pleased to worship at the Temple of Methodical Knowledge. Regardless, these are semantics and, I am sure, not what Shanks point was. From a scientific standpoint, we are more than allowed to approach religion from a logical perspective, and are even permitted to critique religious beliefs. However, it is not possible to denounce a faith in something as illogical, because that is exactly the point and make-up of that faith to begin with. If it was logical, well then where would the faith be?

I realize that I just argued both sides, supposedly on clarification’s sake. So, on an overly personal note, I have to agree that there is no analytical explanation for the loss of life being pawned off on a powerful force. I just cannot wrap my brain around the age old arguments that “God knows, His timing never fails,” and that we shouldn’t worry “because it is all in His hands…” If God knows, why won’t he share? If God wants to teach the world a lesson, why doesn’t he write it in a cloud after obliterating something? If God wants to use world events for America to return to the church, why doesn’t he make every devout follower wealthy and happy? But those are also worthless points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rant over.

Glad to see the Board active.

Reposting of Comments - Authored by Rider and Shanks

2005-09-21T21:55:00.000-05:00

I'm just taking the liberty of reposting this since I feel it belongs on the Main Discussionary Page (and since comments are less likely to be re-posted upon). - The Darek

Pale Rider said...
It is, particularly, your last paragraph that interests me. Here, you commit us to a lame freudian-deflectionism in our approach to religion: the divine exists only so we have a good story to tell. One with well developed characters, explicable causes, swashbuckling, and a little romance. Perhaps that is what you want though. If that is indeed the case, there's really no reason to prefer such a genealogy as yours over any other. Also, your theological flirtation reveals you are not committed to a complete atheism (I could simply be misinterpreting your hesitance to step on our theist/fideist feet here at Alderman though).In addition, I'd like to understand what you meant at paragraph 4, "if 'it was just their time,' that goes..." Just because one cannot see an argument does not mean a logically valid one doesn't exist.This commentary, I fear, is overly polemical, and for that I apologize. I'd enjoy hearing from you again in the future.

Dr. Shanks said...
pale rider,perhaps my explanation of why one might need religion is lame. perhaps it deserves to be thrown out, or even poooped on. regardless, whether or not it is exactly right, i'm not sure how you can say that one explanation is not better than another. my "genealogy" is an attempt for me to reasonably explain human actions in terms of personally observed phenomena. if it is wrong, so be it; it was never intended to be dogma. science's purpose is to find ways to predict and control phenomena based on inductive reasoning. so there's a lot of testing involved and wrong hypotheses, but there is still a more correct account of the phenomena at any given moment, the lastest development in the science.why we might create the divine is ridiculously complicated, i will admit, but not impossible to locate in terms of science; there are only so many variables. perhaps all religion amounts to is a little swashbuckling, but you obviously feel like it's a lot more... and yet both of those can be true at the same time. science doesn't account for how "good" something is, merely that something happens when something else previously happened. so, to science, someone gets a rush of dopamine; to religion, that same person just had a religous experience. if it's more than a trashy romance novel that you expect from religion, i'll give it to you, but you'll still have to admit that "it" is a feeling, something besides cold hard logic that gives one that religious experience. faith, in spite of all the efforts of all the aquinas' in the world, has no business with logic.since the the majority of this blog is made up of religous people, i've tried to not step on anyone's toes by making it seem like i think religion is "bad," thus starting a useless value argument. regardless of the pros or cons of religion, my original point was that religion is not a logical institution. there are people, especially men, who think of themselves as valuing logic and reason above everything else, yet they regularly accept unreasonable hypotheses on the basis of faith. i've tried to point out a contradiction in the way i've observed many of us to think.for paragraph 4, i see no way in which a scientist could begin to explain how it was "just someone's time" instead of "they got hit by a bus." in order to begin such an investigation, it would be necessary to start with a bundle of unprovable deductive premises originally based on only god knows what ("everything happens for a reason," "there is a prime mover"). another problem is, let's say god has a very logical explanation for why a three-year-old girl has to die... and yet we have no scientific access to this "logic;" what sort of logic is he using? logic that is founded on spiritual entities of which we have no perception? that logic is not the logic that man knows--the logic of physcial phenomena--and the jump to explain something with heavenly logic necessarily brings you back to faith... faith that such a thing as heavenly logic could even exist.but perhaps i've assumed that your question of paragraph 4 posited only that a hypothetical reason could exist... if you've actually come across a physically confirmable explanation of why it's someone's time to go, i would like to hear it.sorry for such a long response... i'm sure a lot of it is unnecessary to get my point across, but i want to be relatively clear.

in response to the blame game (katrina stuff)

2005-09-21T01:37:00.000-05:00

i would be inclined to say that these theological theories about katrina are so absurd because there is no logical way to explain horrific events, or even events in general, in terms of god. this problem usually makes itself obvious when there is large media coverage and diverse commentary, even though these theories are common among religious americans and other peoples of the world.

assuming that no one buys what i've said about reasonable explanations, i'll explain myself a little more. when someone close to us dies, we struggle to find a reason why they had to go. sometimes it's as simple as they were way old, they ate too many hamburgers, or they liked to base jump. sometimes, however, when its your 3-year-old sister, or thousands of people in a flood—namely when the reasons are seemingly external and don't have anything to do with a condition that person was in, religion uses god as a way to comfort/explain why this event happened... why a seemingly benevolent, all-powerful being would allow or cause horrible things to befall us.

two generally accepted and polar opposite reasons are: "it was just their time" or "god hated all of them." for "god hated them," you would hope (i surely do) that god wouldn't be such a passive-aggressive omnipotent being, and if he's got a problem with somebody, he would strike them down accordingly, even writing a little sign in the sky with clouds saying, "booyah, i smoked them fools." and why let all the horrible people in the world continue to live? i mean, sure, mardi gras was bad, but it wasn't that bad. it surely wasn't as bad as the pimps of 7-year-old-prostitutes in thailand.

if "it was just their time," that goes so far beyond the scope of any logical argument, why a random group of people in a particular city had to die, that it is clear that the statement of their particular time is unreasonable.

now, there are obviously countless theological arguments as to why it might be someone's time, or why god only kills these particular people, or any other reason why terrible things happen to decent people, but my point is that at their core they are illogical, or absurd. to say that men cannot possibly comprehend the reasons of god is really to identify god as illogical, insomuch as this thing we call reason is only defined by men who have used it and know what it is. to speak of a "greater logic" or a "heavenly logic" is actually to speak of faith—that an argument that doesn’t make sense somehow does make sense and that one should accept this based on something besides reason—which rejects reason as the way in which a person defines “makes sense/is or is not absurd.”

to say that a lot of people died because a divine being willed it gives the event a meaning, a purpose, that it did not have before. it’s hard to say that they all died because they lived under sea level right next to the sea, or that so many people died in the tsunami because of overpopulation. those reasons are mundane, making human life more insignificant and fragile, since we’re at the hands of the knowable yet at times still unpredictable world.

and oh yeah, those jw’s are totally backward.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

2005-09-17T02:47:00.000-05:00

Instead of directly responding to Pale Rider’s post—since I don’t have access to the song—I’ll do a little word-jamming (eww) about an artist who I think makes good music but is an intellectual poseur as well as more than a little pompous (there are quite a few artists like this actually). Pitchfork recently interviewed Kele Okereke and Matt Tong, two members of the up and coming band Bloc Party. Mr. Okereke took center stage in the interview and expressed a number of ideas about art and culture that I found insultingly inconsistent and generally idiotic. This post may not end up with an overarching point—more than anything else I'm trying to defraud the casual intelligentsia, made up primarily of posturing celebrities and high school students.

One way Okereke reveals his surface-only thinking is in extremely broad statements. He claims, “we just need to redefine the art” and “you want to reach people on a real level and have a fan base that understands you,” without defining “the art” as it stands or telling us what constitutes a “real level.” “All writing is connected to a belief or expression,” he kindly informs us; if such a simple statement were so obviously true, one would suppose he would be wasting our time by repeating it. He claims, “we can't believe in religion; that's been exposed as being about land and wealth and prohibiting people;” I for one would love to know when that exposé came out, as well as the writer’s name. All religion is about is land and wealth and prohibiting people? For a man who claims to be a part of a “postmodern” band, as he says, this is an irresponsibly reductive thing to say without any explanation.

Speaking of the postmodernism of his band, Okereke justifies this title by claiming his band does what other bands don’t do; they take musical inspiration from everywhere, rather than only the past (I’m not at all sure that this is even possible). Bands like the White Stripes, for instance, merely “base they're whole shtick around wanting to sound like an authentic rock machine” (nice freshman comp typo there, Pitchfork). I don’t really remember girl-guy combo groups with no bass that allied themselves strongly with country music roaming the rock and roll countryside in the 60’s or 70’s, but I’ll take Okereke’s word for it; maybe there’s a side to the Mommas and the Poppas or Jefferson Airplane that I missed out on. Further betraying a weak understanding of postmodernism, he says, “there's too much rock that relies a fetishism or nostalgia for the old ways. That's a real enemy to music. It needs to be constantly looking forward” (Yet another typo. Maybe if the interviewer was writing rather than fawning). The last time I studied or thought about cultural/intellectual history—which was one second ago—Futurism, a by-product of high modernism and predecessor of postmodernism, is one of the names of forward-looking cultural movements. A fetishism or nostalgia for the old ways is one of the defining characteristics of postmodernism. I guess what Okereke might be saying is that good art should always reject what came before it (emulation of the past, although something Bloc Party does explicitly, is apparently an enemy to music), but this is not only historically naïve and nearly impossible, it is most definitely not a move made by postmodernism, a movement filled with pastiche as well as ironic considerations of the cultures that preceded it. But with as much innate knowledge as Okereke possesses, he can't be bothered to consult books or history. He's a postmodern rockstar.

Here’s an exchange between Matt Tong and Okereke within the interview:
“Kele Okereke: No. I don't really believe in the use of drum machines live.
Matt Tong: Why is that?
Kele Okereke: It's like watching Automato. There's so much that you can do if you mimic your style to a drum machine. I think that's far more exciting.
Matt Tong: Why is that different on record then?
Kele Okereke: Because the live experience and the recorded experience are totally different. When you're recording an album, you won't be able to immerse people in sound. When you play live, you want to grab people on the visceral level. They're completely different.”
Tong wisely questions his fearless leader’s comments, though I'm sure the etiquette—or perhaps the editing—of the interview prevented him from going farther. But it's Okereke's last three sentences that especially bother me; I completely disagree that people cannot be immersed in sound or “grab[bed] on a visceral level” by recorded music, and I think anyone who has ever been to a dance club and enjoyed them self agrees with me. Mr. Okereke then falls prey to black/white dualistic thinking by claiming that the two experiences are “completely different.” For a lot of very simple, mundane reasons they aren’t completely different, but everything out of Okereke’s mouth has to come hard, fast, and in superlative form.

Another delightfully moronic series of comments comes when Matt Tong joins in and the two discuss historical influence, specifically how much of the lyrical content is autobiographical. Tong says, “I mean, some of the stuff is timeless in a sense. But not stuff from like 15 years; that'd sound a bit dated.” ??? Timeless only stretches back 14 years? Seriously? How could that even come out of a person’s mouth without him blushing? Not to be outdone, Okereke follows up with, “But I'm not sure "timeless" exists as an actual [idea].” UMMMMM, OBVIOUSLY IT DOES!! Is he telling us that although we all utter this word, and know what we mean when we say it, the idea of “timelessness” doesn’t exist? This is some high-end metaphysics we’re dealing with here—as well as high-end bullshit.

The following is probably the most absurd thing he says: “I never understood the low art/high art distinction. I think there's real currency in pop culture. We read trashy magazines as much as the next person. So I never saw the point in listening to only one thing. That low art/high art distinction comes from the establishment telling me how I'm supposed to think.” The establishment? Really? Shouldn’t we be more forward thinking, more “postmodern,” than this? Isn’t class control a little passé for Bloc Party? And besides that, has this guy ever been to America? Do any of you think that the “establishment” wants you to read Henry James, William Faulkner, JD Salinger, William Blake, Dostoevsky, Salman Rushdie, John Dewey or Friedrich Nietzsche? Does GW want you to listen to Bach, Rachmaninoff, Leonard Cohen, or Bob Dylan? The highbrow “establishment” that Okereke speaks of died about 85 years ago, with the fall of the landed gentry in England. Talk about fetishizing the past; the cross that Okereke has hung himself on is far more dated than the White Stripes’ shtick.

Sure, I'm nitpicking. It’s probably not fair of me to judge a man’s philosophy from an online music site’s interview with him. But it would sure be nice if a few of the artists we love so much would spend some time genuinely thinking so that they could be the inspirations they want to be all the time, not just on stage or in the recording studio.

The Plot To Blow Up The Archduke's...Life

2005-09-14T12:05:00.000-05:00

This track’s been on the block for some time now, but I wanted to think about it individually before the full record and extraneous baggage drops later in October. For the priveliged, you can find it on iTunes, standard fee; the hoi polloi however will have to wade through the datastream to, well crap…you’re not actually able to get it. If you’re dying to hear, contact me and I’ll pigeon you a copy.

“Do You Want To” from the forthcoming Franz Ferdinand LP You Could Have It So Much Better

Too much like “Take Me Out.”
Yea, that’s an incredibly reductionist view but…
The song begins similarly with an 18-or-so second rollercoaster prologue before the band, once again, diminishes the tempo a step, kicks in the surround, and furnishes the vanilla 4/4 beats. The largest difference: instead of the scruff guitar-driven melodies we have on TMO, the lyrics take the foreground and never back down. Unfortunately they’re really the only memorable thing. And it’s not so much the lyrics as the slip’n slide onomatopoeic chorus you’ll be humming all day. The best part comes midway before the third chorus where they break down into that ‘remember-what-we-all-liked-about-My Sharona' interlude and then howl back into the refrain. Also, make sure to pick up on that subtle synthesized sledgehammer-recoil off the downbeat. Again per TMO, Kapranos talks of stale art-romance, only reversing the dominant gender. Even the major refrain queerly anticipates the former chorus: “Well do ya?/Do ya do ya wanna wanna go/where I never let you before?” Not much to see folks, just that all too familiar bass-bounce, the climaxing crash and crash and crash crescendo, and trademark outro “yeaaaaawwwww….”
I was hoping our Franztastic Four would break worldwide balls with this next record and “Do You Want To” offers average ammunition for such a campaign. Now it’d certainly be an oversight to hold the track accountable for the entire work. The last album, for instance, did exhibit the band’s ability to craft adept rockers outside TMO. Moreso, this is (perhaps) only the first of several singles and Franz Ferdinand understandably lingers on the mind – constant “Take Me Out” references warranted – which goes to explain the mediocrity of our present subject.
Nonetheless I’m hesistant to dismiss the song entirely for it accomplishes exactly what it’s meant to. And the boys do have their advantages. Ferdinand’s n-wave atavism does not disappoint and yeah, the song thankfully abuses both melody and rhythm again and again. Ferdinand, if nothing else, possesses an interesting improvement on the conventional pop formula (as seen in TMO and here), dissolving the chorus among the verse and reverberating the lines inbetween to dizzying effect. It appears then they are doing what they do well, with pure execution.

For those of you questioning the relevance, this track demonstrates whether or not it is acceptable to allow pop music to submit second-rate material again and again if the material just satisfies. Didn’t Eminem get away with writing the same song somewhere around 5-9 times? Well he did change it up a time or two by allowing Dr. Dre to collaborate.

...and now back to Katrina coverage.

2005-09-14T09:17:00.000-05:00

Voters Overwhelmingly Reject State Question 723

Almost 90 percent against. Wow. People sure don't like taxes.

DoA, or Reply to The Gas Tax

2005-09-13T12:43:00.000-05:00

Well I think the gas tax is dead on arrival. It doesn't get any simpler than that. As for my opinion, I don't think a 5 cent tax is thaaaaaaaaaat bad, but I also think it's gonna cost Oklahomans a lot more than the $2.35 a month they are advertising. I'm not very happy that this is even necessary, since we piddled away all the money we already had allocated for road repair, but I still think it's needs to be done. But in the end it will not matter since it has no chance of passing.

Also I find it kind of intersting. Did you all realize that the government isn't taking a fix amount of gas tax as it is. I mean when gas was at $.72, the gov was only paying $.12 (+/-) for it. But now the gov't is paying around $1.88 and then it is sold to us for around $3.00 even. Why are they making more and more money off of us? I mean obviously the 50 cents on the gallon they were making 5 years ago was enough. Why do they now need to make $2.12? Why don't they just sell it to us at $2.40 and keep their "fity cent" profit...Maybe there's something I'm missing though.

Gas tax

2005-09-13T12:14:00.000-05:00

Is it too soon to change topics? Because I'd really like to hit this before it's too late.

An increase in fuel taxes to pay for road and bridge repairs is on the ballot today in Oklahoma. What do you all think?

The Blame Game by a Different Name (sort of Re: Katrina Stuff)

2005-09-13T03:22:00.000-05:00

I find myself agreeing with "The Darek" that the blame goes in all directions here. Even if it doesn't, or if the blame belongs more squarely in one camp than another, how are we going to know that with any certainty? How are we (the generic citizens) ever going to have more than heresay and conjecture based on information processed through the news network spin cycles? Yes, the blame goes in many directions, but does it also go to God? (Oooooooo, feel the segue)

Since this whole Katrina debacle started, I've heard many versions of why God would let this happen (or, in several cases, make this happen). I'd like to toss out a few.

- An annual gay pride parade of sorts called Southern Decadence was scheduled to take place shortly after Katrina stormed in. Rev. Bill Shanks holds that the storm was God's reprisal for that. Just a wee bit of Googling led me to an article with specifics.

- Another organization posits that at 12:32 on the 29th, the satellite image of Katrina resembled a human fetus, ergo the storm was God punishing abortionists. I kinda see a Super Mario-esque fireball; no clear fetus to my eyes.

- On Saturday, I had a chat with a few Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door (I am by no means saying that these are the views of all Jehovah's Witnesses, just these two particular doorknockers). They told me, in no uncertain terms, that this was just another forerunner of the coming Apocalypse, like the Monsoon. I should have no sympathy at all for anyone hurt in this disaster, because God wanted all of those people to die. Anyone affected by the storm had it coming.

I am reminded of the doomsday talk from 9/11; I believe Falwell was the loudest voice in that theological shouting match. Doesn't this sort of reasoning seem regressive? Technology exists so that we can become better oracles, seeing the clues to God's global temper tantrums in cloud formations. The storm came because we angered the gods. This fits right in with ancient Greece. Why not that we've offended mighty Poseidon and he is sending his storm because of excessive Gulf shrimping practices?

Has this sort of idea been prevalent throughout all of history and I'm just naïve in assuming that people had generally stopped seeing angry gods behind the storm clouds? Or are these just the opinions of fringe wackos made observable because the internet allows any gaggle of jaskasses to throw together a website and say whatever they want?

answering half of my own question

2005-09-12T20:54:00.000-05:00

First off, thanks to the Jobey for providing an article that specifically outlines the failures made in preventative measures. As for the response, Salon.com has an article that outlines FEMA's failures and oversights, such as turning away a veritable host of aid workers offered by Chicago's mayor Richard Daley days before the hurricane struck. The article, by Farhad Manjoo, is entitled "Why FEMA Failed," and you can find it either searching by date--09/07--or by going three pages deep into their Katrina article section. I still have yet to find anything about the failures of state or city officials; that's not to say there isn't anything.

The shortfall.

2005-09-12T19:17:00.000-05:00

The poor planning for this hurricane began a couple of years ago.

When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.
...
Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Check out the link. Check out the hundreds of other analyses of the levee funding cuts. The evidence seems to suggest that the way the country has spread our resources has left us in a tough position to prepare for and deal with things like Katrina.

And then there's this bullshit...

TheFederal Emergency Management Agency official in charge of the New Orleans rescue was fired from his last private-sector job overseeing horse shows.
And before joining FEMA as a deputy director in 2001, Mike Brown, the Republican Party activist, had no significant experience that would have qualified him for the position. But the Oklahoman got the job through an old college friend who at the time was heading up FEMA.

The guy in charge of planning for disasters for the whole country had no significant experience that would have qualified him for the position? He was a Republican activist with some friends in high places and a boss who doesn't look too closely at resumes appearantly. He's gone now. A few weeks too late.

It's bad leadership and bad direction that made this disaster worse than it had to be. It was going to be bad regardless, but if there had been better funding for repairs, maybe that levee would have held and maybe a few homes and businesses could have been saved. Maybe if better, more qualified people had been in charge, there would have been a faster response, aid would have reached those in need sooner, and New Orleans wouldn't have erupted into chaos in the days after the storm. Some blame should be placed where it is due.

Radiant with Terror (RE Katrina)

2005-09-12T17:36:00.000-05:00

Here's a thought I have yet to hear from any source. Maybe, just maybe the forces at fault are ALL the forces that are having the finger of blame pointed at them. The arguments can flock from anyone with a bias opinion. It's easy, plain and simple. But it seems to elementary for me to say, well destruction on this scale and the slow response are most definitely the fault of one specific target. The world rarely works like that. So let us take a look at them all...

First, Bush and the Federal Gov. They were seemingly slow to respond on the national level. There is no doubt about that. It took too long to get federal troops and supplies to the areas most affected by the hurricane. That's unfortunate. I think one point that is being overshadowed is the fact that these helpful measures were on their way to Florida, which by all accounts was set to be the site of the worst damage. I've yet to be entirely liberally persuaded that Bush was just puttin around, waiting. We know for a fact that he placed several calls to the governor and Risk Managers of Louisiana urging them to mobilize within their states and to brace as best they could. I do, however, believe federal support should have been shifted from the Florida relief to New Orleans as soon as the devastation was predicted 3 days before the worst of it hit.
Also, I don't think I have ever come so close to hating someone as I am with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. My god man, just answer a simple question now and again. The Bush White House is so afraid of living up to peoples' worst fears that it chooses instead to dodge question, spout platitudes, and act more shady than the American people can handle. Below 40% indeed. But who knows, maybe "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

FORMER FEMA Director Mike Brown...what can I say. He's been criticized for his slow and ineffective actions in the recovery effort. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I have no freaking idea how recovery is actually going. The best we can get is a media personality saying "proceedings are slow and, frankly, disheartening," or the White House saying "things are going well." But for any of us to criticize the effort is baffling because I haven't the foggiest idea what Mr. Brown was doing and even less of a notion on what he could've been doing better. My inkling is that none of you actually know either. But he did resign after they gave his operation over to Vice Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard. That doesn't really bode well for his credibility...Oh yeah, one final note. Every one likes to comment on Brown resume, citing Horse Judge as his main qualification. It seems to be of some importance that he also worked in emergency/risk management here in Oklahoma as well. How helpful this was to his FEMA career remains to be seen.

Next on deck, is the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans. They knew what was coming as soon as anyone else did. They knew this hurricane was going to be worse than anything they'd seen before. They were even called several times by several officials and told to get ready. State and local officials were the very sources who TOLD the federal government over the last decade that their levees could only withstand a Level 3 hurricane. Again, they knew this was going to be a level 4. The fact is they thought they had dodged a bullet by the near passing of the hurricane so when the critical hit came, they were unprepared. It's unfortunate again. So what do they do after the fact? Claim that the federal government had ignored their needs and took it out verbally on the relief workers. I feel they need to take their share of the crap-feast, step up their relief efforts, and focus on how to prevent this from happening again.

I guess finally (and slightly non-topically) is the people of New Orleans. Many stayed after the state gov, the federal gov, their governor, and the president all told them they needed to evacuate. I know how these people think. How many times has our local news told us "watch out. This tornado's a big one!" and yet we sit in our living rooms watching Everybody Loves Raymond assuming it'll be alright. Surely they thought the same thing. But to those who then decided to stay after the storm had passed, even after constant warnings, I say come to grips with your own ignorance and demise. They should not have to die or suffer, but if they make that choice, far be it for me to interfere.

Sorry for the longwinded post, but I'm sick of pointing the blame from person to person instead of just accepting that many forced knew it was a risk and ignored or put it all off hoping that chance would save us. We made mistakes and we should all have to deal with it, but let's not forget to take a look at the flag we're carrying.

"This trial cannot proceed," said the King in a very grave voice, "until all the jurymen are back in their proper places--all."

2005-09-12T17:03:00.000-05:00

I would like to know exactly where the various government agencies came up short, both in preparation and response. Perhaps someone could send me in the direction of an article that points this out substantively and materialistically. I have yet to see it, and I think a great deal of argument and polemic is floating around without an appropriate amount of evidence.
Let me make it clear that this is not another instance of crying "blame game." I think the notion that analysis has to wait until later, especially by parties such as ourselves, is simply silly. Sure, we can send some money or other forms of aid, but it's not as though that takes up all our mental energy. And what are our educations for if not to live, respond, and act in the world in a wiser and more educated manner?
The idea that questioning our leadership is unpatriotic is medieval, and belongs in nations that maintain control by divine right rather than by election. If either party wants to preserve the illusion that we live in a democracy, they ought not meet every instance of democratic initiative with a medieval response.
On the other hand, flooding the mediasphere with unsubstantiated polemic is irresponsible. While I'm sure to many angry people, both in New Orleans and elsewhere, the problems with the response were self-evident. To far more people this simply cannot be the case. The ethos of the Democratic party has suffered at the hands of Republicans as well as its own mistakes. In this situation, the pathos of the new argument is quite potent. I think reinforcing the logos--the reasoning--of the Democratic party's polemic might go a long way to reestablishing its political potency.

2005-09-11T22:22:00.000-05:00

So what does everyone think about Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans? Most of the people in New Orleans, I have no sympathy for. I do feel for the ones the honestly could not afford or didn't have a way out. Those that consciously chose to stay, those arent deserving of my help. They were warned, but chose to ignore said warnings. Its funny that the worst looters in the city are the ones supposed to stop looters; the police. How can we expect any citizen to not loot if the police are the ones participating as well?

It's Blog, Hoorah Blog

2005-09-11T14:15:00.000-05:00

Just some bloging ground rules/considerations since we're gonna fire it up today.

#1. Be as respectful as you can be.
#2. That being said, be as cutthroat as you want, observing rule 1.
#3. Try and remain topical until we have a topic shift. If you responding to the topic in your post please title it RE: "Orignal Post Name" or RE: "Post Response," just so we can keep it all straight.
#4. The current topic will be decided by the member who's turn it is. This will work on a revolving member system TBD.
#5. Anyone out there who wants can leave comments about any posts made. Observe rules no. 1 and 2.

Now some other things to consider. Use hyperlinks as much as possible. It lends credibility and some of the other posters may not have as much info as you do so that's helpful to them. Direct quotes are also good. Oh one final thing. This isn't a blog about politics, philosophy, music, religion, art, etc. It's a blog about ALL of those things and more. I would absolutely love to respond to a post about 9/11 one day and then Anaximander the next, so let's keep it varied.

We need a post to fire it off so anyone wanna take the helm?