0 Presidents

This presidential transition continues to go down in history as one of most unprecedented, if not interesting, elections.

Previously, one could have argued that Obama is taking over too soon. He has not even been voted in by the Electoral College yet, but he makes more speeches than W and his Office of the President Elect is a new fabrication. But yet, he is already taking criticism for not doing enough. For instance Barney Frank stated, "At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation." Of course, that says more about the current administration than it does Obama. We've already made it 7.9 years without decent leadership, at least there is light at the end of the tunnel.

I also find it intersting that critics are stating that they will tolerate Obama as long as he governs from the center. What? These same people never proposed that Bush should govern from the center! His administration was far to the right all the way down the list. These intellectually challenged pundits need to realize a liberal was elected president, which means people want the government to move more to the left. Having said that, I don't really have any illusions that Obama will be a great "left/liberal" president. His cabinet is already looking a bit right-sided.

In This Twilight

Nine Inch Nails @ The Target Center, 2008.11.25

This show was an excellent example of nihilistic [1] postmodern-rock. A visceral (even Dionysian) experience with Josh Freese pounding the drums.

Setlist:
1,000,000 / Letting You / Discipline / March of the Pigs / Head Down / The Frail / The Wretched / Closer / Gave Up / The Warning / The Great Destroyer / 5 Ghosts I / 21 Ghosts III / 19 Ghosts III / Piggy / The Greater Good / Pinion / Wish / Terrible Lie / Survivalism / 31 Ghosts IV / Only / Down in It / Head Like a Hole

ENCORE: Echoplex / Good Soldier / Hurt / In This Twilight

[1] In this sense I mean the aesthetic intent of the content, and not the quality of the overall content itself as I discussed earlier.

Cool as November

This month we finally see the DVD releases of the three greatest tours of 2007-2008,with performances from The Police, Rush and Dream Theater.

First is Dream Theater's Chaos in Motion. The DVD is not the greatest quality, but it does capture the latest tour of very intense progressive rock. Most notable is Surrounded 07 as it's extended and Marillionized, with a part of Sugar Mice added.

After a year of waiting for the alleged DVD release from The Police, Certifiable shows the band in a new light. The maturity of their musicianship comes out, with each individual contributing more color to the music with subtle variations in fills and accents. Much more dynamic than The Police of 1983. The only thing I could ask for (given that this might really be the final chapter of the legend) is a little more material from the other legs of the tour. It would be nice to see the performances of the rare opener Bring on the Night as wells as Spirits in the Material World, and Demolition Man. Also, the final show would have been a great occasion to be documented, containing the first real cover performances from The Police with Sunshine of Your Love, Down So Long and Purple Haze.

Finally, Rush has released Snakes and Arrows Live. Here, everything has been done perfectly. They held off releasing the DVD along with CD live album to record more performances. The third disc contains the songs that were added to the final leg of the tour (including Ghost of a Chance), so we have a complete record of all the songs from this tour.

The last two releases were also done in Blu-Ray, so this might give me the excuse to finally upgrade.

Aesthetic Nihilism (A Polemic)

Quote for the Day:
"When I turn on the radio in 1988, I don't feel anything of the music anymore." - Mike Peters, The Alarm

If this was true in 1988 (and I certainly don't think it was) then twenty years have made this statement much more true, as music has had 20 years of exponential decay. Now, well into the 21st Century, not only is the musicianship itself quite bad, there isn't anything intelligent being said, and further there is nothing to feel. With the visceral element removed, in any aesthetic sense, music has truly become an empty, vacuous experience, with no other result than a mind-numbing daze. In 88, we only had to survive glam metal (which was thankfully killed by Nirvana), but since the atrocity that is hip-hop "music" became dominant in popular music, it has completely killed the possibility of such music ever having substance again. There is simply no longer any standards of excellence. Everything has become just as good as any other thing. Without the virtue of quality, all meaning has been lost or become incomprehensible, and the aesthetic of modern music has become nihilistic. But, as Mike Peters went on to say, "I'm out to fight those songs with every ounce of breath in my body."



Revised 2008.11.24

Time Machines

Last Book Read: Time Machines, Paul J. Nahin

Despite being received with heavy criticism, the 2002 remake of the film The Time Machine seemed to make poignant points that the simpler, earlier versions missed. The time traveler finally comes to learn the answer to his quest: he cannot go back in time and change the past to save his girlfriend, because if she had lived he never would have built the time machine to go back. But, the film holds out hope - we can make choices and change the future.

Nahin's Time Machine is the most comprehensive book I have found on the subject. It covers the topic from the fields of physics, philosophy (metaphysics) and literature. Despite being a mammoth undertaking to cover the scope of time travel, the book does suffer from a singular viewpoint. Nahin's theory is straight forward: time travel is possible and there are no paradoxes involved because the past cannot be changed - whatever will happen in the course of time travel has already happened in our past -if it didn't then it won't. Causality does not require temporal order, backward causality is built in to the nature of time travel. All that is required is logical consistency. I accept his arguments as the most coherent and likely explanation of time travel (in a single one-dimensional timeline), but he finds major faults with any ideas that don't conform to this one. He is overly critical of philosophers and their "thought experiments" of time travel because they don't always agree with the known laws of physics. He doesn't seem to notice that physicists sometimes contemplate what would happen to the universe if natural laws were different, in their own "though experiments." Secondly, he heavily criticizes most fictional accounts of time travel for using "illogical" scenarios where the past can be changed. What he fails to realize though, its that even if its true that past can't be changed, these works present us with the idea "what if" it could. I think its far more likely that in fact time travel is not possible and then it really doesn't matter what form the paradoxes would take, it would all be a futile thought experiment.

The basis of his cosmology is the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The universe consists of the three dimensions of space and extends off into the fourth dimension of time. Just as any place in the universe exists "somewhere," any time in the universe exists "sometime," it is already present within spacetime. If we can travel in time, say into the future by steping though a time portal, that means the future must exist "now." And, if we can step in and go to the past right now, that means the past exists "now." So the universe is one solid, frozen "block" Everything that has ever happened or ever will happen already has. Apparently from the very first instant of existence. This certainly presents a fatalistic viewpoint, nothing can ever be different from what it is. Nahin argues that this is fatalistic, not deterministic. I'm not sure his distinctions really matter. I tend to think this view is overstated. Just as the universe is expanding in space and there are places which will eventually exists which do not at the present state, I think time is expanding into the future and there are "times" which do not yet exist. Perhaps the past is already frozen into spacetime, but it doesn't seem clear to me that the future is. A trip to the future while seeming instant to the traveler may in fact take the full length in universal time while the traveler is suspended in some kind of fifth-dimensional no-where.

Along the way Nahin touches on many alternative theories while dismissing them. One such theory is that time is not one dimension of spacetime, but two or more. In this case we can go back to a familiar starting point, but take a different direction while proceeding in a parallel direction. A similar idea is the "many worlds hypothesis". A trip through time would result in the universe splitting into two worlds, and the one we left would still continue on but the one we enter can be changed. This seems like the most compelling explanation for many of the time travel science-fiction stories. I agree that what has already happened cannot be undone, in fact God cannot even make that the case. So, in a show like Seven Days, when the chrononaut goes back to prevent a nuclear war that destroyed the planet, it would seem that he is in a parallel world and is able to change the outcome for them, but the people he left behind are still in their predicament, unable to change it. Star Trek (notably absent from Nahin's thorough readings) seems to vacillate between the two ideas. Certainly there are many parallel universes such as the ones seen in "Mirror, Mirror" and "All Good Things", as well as a time where they encountered a nearly infinite number of Enterprises. But, at other points such, as Star Trek IV, they seemed to imply that the past was changeable, unless they advocated the same view that what they were going to do had in fact been what had already happened. I won't even try to decipher what happened in the last few series, where time travel became a more common theme, yet utterly inexplicable and not nearly as interesting as The Next Generation.

This is the best overall, comprehensive explanation of time travel, although its really about the nature of time more than machines. The main problem with the book is simply one of organization. The 400+ pages are divided into 4 chapters, making it very difficult to focus on one aspect at a time. Secondly, Nahin attempts to explain things while it seems he may not have a complete understading of them, or at least he is unable to articulate and communicate a complete understanding of them. While sometimes obtuse, it does present a good framework for studying the history of time travel concepts.

The Minneapolis Star & Tribune has endorsed Coleman for senator. Where is the leftist Star Trib that all the right-wingers talk about? I must be reading the wrong edition.

This article discusses that evil word "socialism" , particularly interesting is Sarah Palin's Alaska, where the resources are collectively owned, so that the citizens receive payment from the profits of those resources. But, of course, Obama is the socialist candidate.

Hey Joe

So now the Republicans have a new poster-boy - "Joe the Plumber". But, Joe's not that smart: he doesn't seem to understand the difference between business income and personal income, nor does he seem to have the creativity to see that a business owner can find other ways of paying himself than a salary, in order to avoid a $250,000 income. But, more importantly, he wants to keep America a democracy and not a socialist country. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of government and economics. They are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, the right- notably Ingraham, has already anticipated my criticism and accused the "elite" left of considering Joe too dumb, when he is in fact just average - and that's preferable to smart. But, this just reinforces my suspicion that the right really is anti-intellectual. Rather than educate people on this issues, they would rather everybody vote as mindless sheep. Just look at the recent uproar over the "Obama Flag," which was amazingly not a symbol of his planned authoritarian takeover of the US, but was in fact the state flag of Ohio. This is not a group of people who would earn my faith to lead humanity into the future.

Tonight I see that my representative - Michelle Bachmann is accusing Obama of being anti-American and won't ackowledge that liberals are not anti-American. How the hell did she get elected? At least someone called her out and suggested that her thoughts are dangerous and might lead to neo-facism and neo-McCarthyism.

The right seems to be realizing their defeat. O'Reilly is now saying that its over and seems to have some somber resignation, while Ingraham has just gone of the deep end and is making even less sense than before.

Adverse Feedback Loop

In an effort to remedy the "adverse feedback loop" (I love that term), "White House economist Glenn Hubbard offered a $400 billion to $600 billion plan through which the government would refinance all U.S. mortgages into 30-year fixed mortgages at 5.25 percent through Fannie and Freddie." When James Pethokoukis asked if these plans might be socialism: "The economist's answer: 'I think that bridge has already been crossed.'"

Speaking of socialism, I heard a BBC analysis of American economics today, which included discussion of Obama being called a socialist. There response was, of course, that Obama isn't anywhere near a socialist, he is a centrist and Americans don't really have any understanding of Socialism.

In fact, the "New Deal" wasn't even socialism, it was "third way" economics, as was President Clinton's economic policies. Perhaps Sartre will ultimately be proven right.

Rome is Burning 2

Douglas Rushkoff explains how our economic situation came to be:

"..Bush’s tax cuts and other measures favoring the rich led to the biggest redistribution of wealth from poor to rich in American history. The result was that the wealthy—the investment class—had more money to invest, or lend, than there were people and businesses looking to borrow. "

"Conservatives are still so angry about New Deal reforms of the 1930s that that they have infused politics and banking with an economic ideology that sees any regulation of worker exploitation or predatory investment as anti-capitalist, anti-American, and even anti-God."

"He’s currently working on a project called “Corporatized,” which will explore how chartered corporations disconnected us from reality." Interesting. Perhaps there is nothing more significant than economics in our "real" life, but it is becoming another method of disconnect in the post-modern or hyper-real world.

The conservatives are so worried that a Democrat might win this election because they do not want a New "New Deal", but the New Deal was a response to a severe economic crisis, and as the conservatives are creating another one, they themselves are perpetuating the need for The New Deal 2: The Sequel.

After seeing SH on Fox News getting angry that Obama might have won the debate and essentially calling him too smart to be president, I'm finally convinced that the Republicans are anti-intellectual, and loathe education, intelligence, as well as public awareness and interaction.


John Gray discusses America's fall:

"The fate of empires is very often sealed by the interaction of war and debt. That was true of the British Empire, whose finances deteriorated from the First World War onwards, and of the Soviet Union. Defeat in Afghanistan and the economic burden of trying to respond to Reagan's technically flawed but politically extremely effective Star Wars programme were vital factors in triggering the Soviet collapse. Despite its insistent exceptionalism, America is no different. The Iraq War and the credit bubble have fatally undermined America's economic primacy. The US will continue to be the world's largest economy for a while longer, but it will be the new rising powers that, once the crisis is over, buy up what remains intact in the wreckage of America's financial system."

This is exactly the point I've been promoting. Since the end of the Cold War, we have absolutely wasted our position as sole World Power. We could have been a leader - set an example, created (benevolently) a "New World Order", promoted democracy through peacful means, and raised the standards of living for everyone. But, instead we apparently just wanted to get rich (more rich). So to benefit the American upper class we have pissed off the rest of the world, wasted our military resources on securing unrenewable natural resources and destroyed our own culture (the actual people who have to work for a living). Not only will the forces of war and global economics pressure our relations, but internal corruption will tear apart the future of this country, just like former Empires. As others rise into position of new super-powers, we will not have the resources of strategic "force projection" to reach parity in international disputes. Without economic, military or diplomatic powers, we will no longer be able to project our will onto the world.

Rome is Burning

So, what have we learned from the current state of the nation and eight years of the current policies? For one thing, the 90s motto "greed is good" still holds. There has been mismanagement and corruption from the top all the way down. By this I mean all the way to the top of the country down to everyone trying to keep up with the Joneses. I commend Jason Calacanis for acknowledging the coming meltdown and the Enron-style scandal early this year on the TWIT netcast. I also concur with his analysis that Bush is the worst fiscally-responsible president in history and is probably worse than the combination of the next three most irresponsible presidents. We also know the oil companies are completely incompetent or are running a major scam on the public. If Matt Simmons is right, then oil may hit $500, and even he is aware that more drilling is not an answer at all and that the oil companies "don't know their own business" and the Republicans are clueless on energy.

We have also learned that the Republicans are not the party of small government and reduced government spending and they are not the party of non-interference, letting the market correct itself. We have seen the limits of capitalism. Socialism isn't the problem, it may well be the answer. Many people are still locked into the view that socialism is bad and when the individual runs into problems, well, that's the risk of a free-market system. But when large corporations have problems, the government must intervene to support the national economy. There is some truth to this, but its all rigged in favor of the corporations. If the government buys into the financial industry for a trillion dollars and then regulates where the money moves,then that's already socialism. Rather than worry about things becoming "too socialist", we should be extending that direction of thought. We should extend government "interference" into areas like health care, so that all citizens can benefit from the economics of our country, rather than having to support big business but not receive any direct benefits. The truth that conservatives don't want to hear is that the only solution is to tax the rich higher. Someone has to pay to get us out of this mess and the rich are the only ones that can do it. Most of America doesn't have enough money left for higher taxes. What are you suppossed to do when the bully comes back, but he already has all of your lunch money? Even Ben Stein has admitted that taxing the rich is the only solution. Rather than contemplating a flat-tax (which is really a regressive tax, higher on the poor), we should be upfront about the fact that the wealthy in America have it too easy. This is just one more reason that a McCain win of the presidency would be very dangerous for America's future, given his goal of reducing taxes on the top-income brackets.

Lastly, we have learned how absolutely absurd right-wing conservative talk shows are. For the last year they have been saying that the economy is great, lying about unemployment, and stating that the value of the dollar is of no importance and the economy will correct itself (SH). Now they are asking why no has questioned the falling value of the dollar (LI). Even more absurd (in a more humorous way), they (LI & ML) discuss how unpresidential McCain is on economic matters and how he jumps to decisions emotionally and does not take the time for rational consideration. If they can't get behind the idea of him being presidential, I don't know how any of us can. It is certain that he lacks the temperament to be president.

For political debate, I recommend Andrew Sullivan for a non-liberal critique of conservatives, as well as "Count the Lies."

Happiness Is the Road

As Ars Technica reported, Marillion is going to release the new album for free. I imagine this will be the 1 CD version. Even though I paid full price for this last winter, I'm happy to pay and let others hear it for free. I have high hopes for the full 2 Cd album, with tracks like Real Tears For Sale, which ranks a classic pure-Marillion song.

Ok - it is the full 2Cd album, but I thank Marillion for contacting those who pre-paid for the album (financed production, really) with download links so they could be among the first to hear it. I'm not convinced that giving it away will help improve their financial gain, but I guess we'll consider this a great experiment and see what happens. Of course I did download it right away and am quite enjoying it, but I'll save my full review until I can hear the CD at full volume and quality.

The Idiot Bastard Song

Fred Thompson is an idiot. No question about it (after all, he was in Iron Eagle III) , he should have stayed on Law & Order. Now he's whining that the attacks on Sarah Palin are the most intense in history. I could easily name dozens of political figures in the last tewnty years that have had it worse. But, of course, the "liberal" media keeps bringing up attacks on Palin over and over again. Or - maybe, the conservatives are making sure this story keeps coming up in order to create "news" that keeps the media busy - too busy to discuss the real issues or allow Obama to get any air time. These "attacks" on Palin are the best thing to happen to the Republicans in this campaign. No one is discussing Palin's situation more than the right-wing scumbags on Fox News and abhorrent media outlets like KTLK.

But, as for how important their opinions are, I'll quote Craig DeLancey from U2 and Philosophy:

"I'm confident that none of these four men [from U2] knows much about political economics, about civil rights history, or labor history, about AIDS vectors or conflict resolution. But I'm also confident that the people I see talking about those things on TV don't know much about them either, and those people on TV are being paid a wage to say what they say, or often, implicitly, through self-censorship and the creation of the acceptable dimensions of public discourse, are paid to not say what they don't say. So you've got at least as much reason, and probably more reason, to listen to [U2] as you do to listen to those shriekers on 'Fox News.'" He goes on to discuss authenticity in Rock music and how rock stars can't always be trusted because of their narcissism. "Given that pundits and newscasters are people who became pundits or newscasters because they were obsessed with watching themselves talk in mirrors, and the owners of news stations are people who are obsessed with watching their empires and their wallets grow, this sin of rock stars is not one that singles them out for damnation."

The political personalities are the last people you should listen to for any sort of political insight. They have a double agenda- listen to themselves talk, and get rich doing it. The sad fact is that people listen to them and make them rich while allowing their own brains to be turned into ectoplasm. Forget about killing all the lawyers, let's kill all the pundits.

Scenes from a Memory

I though I'd take a minute to address the visual arts. I really like what is being done these days with the help of technology.



Checkout Digital Blasphemy. I've been a fan of his work for years, I'm always amazed by the immersive worlds that are created in these pictures. I'm not a fan of straight naturalist art - what's interesting here is the presence or non-presence of humanity. Often there are lone figures facing a giant city or massive landscape. And, when there in no one, their absence is glaring, leaving the viewer in perfect isolation. The tranquility is contrasted to the excitement of discovering "what's out there?" In Endless Blue the distant boat and campfire reveal that the viewer is not alone in this vast beach. Other favorites are Overseer and Gotham Garden.


Also, take a look at Night Visions (Boing Boing link). What Troy Paiva does with photography is awe inspiring. His technique is light painting, which I think is genius, because I believe color is incredibly important in visual arts. Once again, we experience the lack of presence. These places have no people, there are vast and empty, yet they are completely defined by humanity. They are artifacts and these "places" owe their very existence to world of people. See more at Lost America

God Save the Queen

As the election battle begins its escalation, the right-wing nutballs are now vehemently attacking the left-wing bloggers for their scrutiny of Sarah Palin. Obama has already said the Palin's family is off limits (of course that never stopped right-wing attacks of Chelsea Clinton), but surley Palin would have expected this level of invasion, just look at what Obama went through because of something his preacher said. Her family life would be a non-issue, except that not everything adds up, and given her holier-than-though moral stance, one would expect her family to adhere to these "high" limits, otherwise she is an inconsistency in herself. But, the right-wing radio scumbags are happy to give her a pass while they attack any democrat for anything they can find.

The media is constantly comparing her experience to that of Obama, but this is absurd. They should be comparing her to Biden. Being mayor of a town of five thousand and 20 months of being governor of an out-of-the-way state (really when was the last time Alaska played a big part in national decisions, plus this is the state that gave us Ted Stevens!) doesn't really equal 35 years in national politics. I have more confidence in a Congressional member, who might have some knowledge of national conditions and geo-political situations, than someone from an isolated and very independent state.

But the real problem with Palin is not her experience, but her outlook towards politics. She's already played a dirty game of invoking religion and denouncing her rival's own religious view (which happened to be Christian Lutheran.) as well as suggesting banning books at the local library (which resulted in firing the librarian). There is also the matter of an ethics investigation and the question of lobbying for earmarks (even though McCain says she didn't.) So, we have a candidate that isn't nearly as clean as the nutballs would have you think, and we have another Republican that has an agenda of ramming their religion into everyone's life.

Here's something to read about her (thanks to Leo Laporte for the link)

King of Sunset Town

O, it is excellent
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
to use it like a giant

         -Shakespeare

Watch a big wheel turning round
Some go up and some go down
Some go thirsty some just drown
"That's the law round here"
Said the king of sunset town

And in the night he comes to me
And the square becomes a battlefield
Of staring eyes that can't explain
The insanity and the greater game

         - Marillion, The King of Sunset Town, from Seasons End, 1989

Today Russia announced that Poland is now a nuclear target and cut off official ties to NATO, and we replied that we would be more than happy to defend Poland militarily. Not exactly the 21st century we might have hoped to live in. We have been antagonizing Russia since we promised not to expand NATO past Germany. Of course, countries like Poland deserve the protection of NATO, after their experience in WWII and the Soviet-era. But our expansion into Asia and countries like Georgia shows an aggressive determination to continue "containment." This strategy seems to me a bit late. Perhaps if reality was closer to Reagan's vision of nuclear disarmament by 1996, we would be in a safer position today. Or if we had rapidly expanded NATO in the 1990's while Russia was still wounded and our military was still at a Cold War strength. But we had such a rapid drawdown of our forces, our actual strength of influence was less than it could have been. And, continued nuclear disarmament did not proceed as forcefully it should have. People were quick to dismiss the Cold War as history, quickly receeding in time, without realizing its future implications and continued dangers.

Now, we have a return to the 1970s - the American economy in ruins, and the Russian economy experiencing a a resurgence because of revenue from higher hydro-carbon prices. So, now Russia has the means to make itself heard. As I noted earlier, Rice had to warn Russia about their bomber patrols off of Alaska. It wants to be taken seriously in global politics. For over fifteen years we have clearly not been taking Russia seriously, even though they never lost their means as a strategic power. But rather than reach compromises with them, we are still treating them as losers, and acting like the victors of the war.

One possible outcome from this month's events is the reinvestment in conventional forces. We have been reminded that there still are dangers out there, ones more scary than angry mobs with IEDs. There are still several strategic-level potential adversaries (i.e. China, India) that are investing in fifth-generation technology. Russia has become a premium-weapons supplier, and should they choose to deploy that equipment, their conventional forces could once again be a formidable threat. It would be wise to assume their threats are not just idle ones. There may be a realization that we still need progams like the F-22 in greater numbers. And, I would think we would be wise to invest in upgrading our current fleets of F-15 and F-16 to newer versions (block 60, for instance) in order to save money by buying proven and economical technology and fill the gap so we don't need to rush the unproven programs like the F-35. I've noted over at the Viper Lounge how we have been drastically reducing our capability while others increase theirs, such as Iran's new SA-20 missile.

Another issue here is one of credibility. We have told Russia that it is inappropriate for nations to invade other soverign nations in the 21st century. Yet, why should anyone take our moral high-ground seriously after the 2003 invasion of Iraq? For the first time in our 200 year history, we invaded another nation without specifically being provoked. This must have done serious damage to the perception of America trying to do the good thing. I would think our lectures would be taken as pure hippocracy.

Like the strategy of detente, there are those who wish to stabalize and therefore prolong continued antangonism. Certainly the faster we get the neo-cons from Washington, the safer we will be. Perhaps in the 22nd century we can get along with Russia.

Popular Music

This article reveals the latest trend in concerts - playing full albums. For some artist this isn't new, particularly Marillion, who has been doing this for years at their "Marillion Weekend" conventions, including Brave, Afraid of Sunlight, Marbles and 2009 will showcase Season's End for its 20th anniversary. In fairness, Pink Floyd did this back in 94 with Dark Side of the Moon. I think this is a great idea, and one that all artists should engage in. I commend Marillion for their effort to not lose songs along the way. Their weekends involve three shows and besides playing a complete album and usually a large selection of new stuff from their newest release, they also play quite a few rarities.

It seems to me that this isn't a "gimmick," its a way to fully realize the artistic vision of the original albums and songs. Too many times, a tour for a new release will include a handful of new tracks and then the really old material that people know all too well. The remaining tracks never get performed,- and get their own life- they just become forgotten album cuts. Some may get played for the new tour but are then quickly discarded, never to return. Popular artists that have a massive catalog often fall into this category, such as Sting and Rush. Sting himself has said that the songs recorded on the album are just "blueprints" and that he revises them for the better while playing them on the tour. I would like to see what he could do with some of the songs he has never really performed. For other artists some of the songs may just be filler to try to produce a full album. In this case, if the songs don't stand up to being played live and they can't be reworked then they probably can't be classified as good art. Of course, this might reveal much about record companies and their "artists" in the last ten years. But, for the good musicians, hopefully this trend will continue to spread and many amazing songs that have not been heard in a long time will be resurrected.

Seventeen Years Ago Today . . . Sting

August 3rd, 1991 - Alpine Valley, Wisconsin.
My first live experience with Sting. I only mention this now, as opposed to say a 20 year retrospective, because of its relevance to the recent Police tour. Sting had at that point been long removed from the Police, never to return. He had taken his music into a farther orbit from the world of rock- more jazz, more classical. He had created this persona of a "rock star", even though he didn't play all that much rock. So, given the years of jazz bands and the melancholy feel of The Soul Cages, along with the intimate small-club settings that had begun the tour, one could have expected more of the same low-key approach. That night Sting stepped out onto the amphitheater stage - and he rocked! The sound was the closest I'd heard to the original Police sound. The Soul Cages was a rebirth for Sting. The growing size of his bands, although quite elegant and grand, had grown too large, along with his attitude of arrogance. Here we had Sting as a musician, stripped down, with the genius previously found in the studio now brought out to the stage. The hair was cut and the attitude diminished. He was back on bass and his playing was much more complex, more improvisational, and the songs came alive. He had found a band that was the equal of The Police. Dominic Miller brought back a less-is-more approach to guitar, in the tradition of Andy Summers. Its obvious his style created a unique sound that helped Sting write the best songs of his career. It is unlikely that we will ever hear another SC again. Vinnie Colaiuta was another top class drummer - showing a proficiency with poly-rythmic complexity that is rarely matched. And David Sancious brought the keyboards into the rock universe - raw, powerful and fluid. The four of them bonded into one single element: solid, but dynamic; stripped down but expansive and immensely layered. The energy of this band was uncontainable even in the polarized material from the etheral Soul Cages. And the elegance and grandeur were still there, as heard on MTV Unplugged and at the Montreaux 91 Jazz Festival. It was the best band he ever had. The tour was fairly well reproduced on The Soul Cages Live video (when will there be an expanded DVD version of this?)

But, after 1995 Sting (& Dominic) played with less capable bands for a mediocre decade, never nearing their previous achievements. There was another rebirth in 2005 when they were joined by Josh Freese and Lyle Workman for a very limited Broken Music tour. Once again a 4-piece band, this time with two guitars. More Police tunes were resurrected and Dominic got to rock harder than ever. This was obviously the catalyst for the Police reunion and these songs were given a new life. Now, it seems that the final chapter of The Police has been written. Sting's only commitments now are more lute performances, and we can only hope that like the Broadway shows of 1989, these "distractions" are the calm before the storm. Another rebirth is not needed, only a continuation of the momentum and a return to the previous band. I remember that after the 1993 show I kept thinking that the best was over, it would never be that good again. I was right in one sense - that particular band was done. Fortunately in the more general sense I was wrong, and fifteen years later everything would come full circle with The Police. But, now I think it may be true. Even though we are far from the peak of Sting's career in the 1980s, I have seen him live 4 times in the last 5 years, and it would have been 5/5 if the Broken Music tour had come closer. I can only hope that says something about a continued presence and that 2009/2010 brings some new Sting material of high quality that "rocks."

Once Upon a Daydream (Part II (Part 2))

The Police @ Marcus Amphitheater, Milwaukee, WI, 2008.07.25

Perhaps it was the 80+ degree heat that wore down my energy level, or wore down the band, or just the fact that this was an outdoor theater, but this did not seem like the same Police that performed a year ago. Perhaps the 2007 St Paul show was one of the high points of the tour, but that show was full of energy, a better Police than existed in 1983. Now, the band seems to be running down after a year of touring, and Sting seems like he's trying to be old. Perhaps the biggest disappointment was the shortened setlist. Gone were the powerful songs that propelled the set, Synchronicity II, Truth Hits Everybody & The Bed's Too Big Without You, as well as the poignant Walking in Your Footsteps. We didn't even get the replacement Bring on the Night like other shows, although they added Hole in My Life and Demolition Man to this leg of the tour. There were also some strange reworkings, such as the humorous intro to Every Little Thing She Does is Magic, (apparently not intentional), which destroyed the buildup of the song. But besides these setbacks, this was The Police, and this tour was absolutely historic. Andy can still shred on guitar, Sting is a master of bass, and Stewart is still the kinetic Stewart. By the grace of Fortune I was able to experience this tour twice, and watching these songs come back to life after decades of fearing them fade into history.


Setlist:
Message In A Bottle / Walking On The Moon / Demolition Man / Voices Inside My Head / When The World Is Running Down / Don't Stand So Close To Me / Driven To Tears / Hole In My Life / Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic / Wrapped Around Your Finger / De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da / Invisible Sun / Can't Stand Losing You / Roxanne /King Of Pain / So Lonely / Every Breath You Take / Next To You

Duluth 2008 Airshow

Full Blog Post

Photo Gallery

SF

Here is a lecture by Neal Stephenson about the nature of the sci-fi genre, more accurately the Speculative Fiction genre, and how genres no longer exist as they did in the "standard model". There is now a bifurcation of SF and the mundane. I tend to agree with his analysis. Take for example Lost. Is it Sci-fi or not? It doesn't really matter -it is mainstream. And its speculative. I think that Sci-fi has led the way in postmodern literature, by developing new approaches, and that these have now found their way into literature as a whole, blurring the distinction. I love his idea of SF as "idea porn" - that's a great way to look at it.

I do take issue with his definition of geek. He states that "we are all geeks, and its okay, its preferred" He does correctly qualify that it okay only "when its done in the correct place and time. I'll call his definition "the weak definition". Just because everyone has one particular thing they can be be geeky about - does not make them a geek. And for many of the people in this category, their obsession is just annoyingly nerdy. "Geek" is a lifestyle, and some things -sports, cars, etc -just don't fit, unless its done with a modern or "cool" twist. More importantly "geek" is a lifestyle that is embraced by the participant. This is the key that makes it okay now, when it wasn't cool before. Those people who secretly have a singular dedication do everything they can to distance themselves from being a "geek," because for most of these people it is still a bad thing. But because geeks are on the cutting edge of developing society, these rest of the masses have to catch up with them to be able to function in these new societies, just as other writers have to catch up with SF authors. So, the "strong definition" of geek is someone, usually on the fringes of society, who is intelligent, obsessively dedicated to certain subjects, highly tech savvy , able to quickly adapt to the latest tech trends, and yet able to interact socially with others [1]. There is also a shared communal heritage, usually revolving around vast knowledge of sci-fi related trivia. Many people do not have all these traits and are therefore simply not geeks. Here is the link to The Geek Test, in case anyone is wondering about their own rating.

[1] This is what differentiates geeks from other pseudo-intellegent, yet socially akward, sub culture stereotypes, i.e nerds.

Children's Crusade

Here is a report from the 2003 World Economic Forum. Of interest is this quote:

"If the U.S. unilaterally goes to war, and it is anything short of a
quick surgical strike (lasting less than 30 days), the economists were
all predicting extreme economic gloom: falling dollar value, rising spot
market oil prices, the Fed pushing interest rates down towards zero with
resulting increase in national debt, severe trouble in all countries
whose currency is guaranteed against the dollar (which is just about
everybody except the EU), a near cessation of all development and
humanitarian programs for poor countries. Very few economists or
ministers of finance predicted the world getting out of that economic
funk for minimally five-10 years, once the downward spiral ensues."

I recently saw a presentation by Michael Scheuer discussing his book Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. His argument was that in fact we are losing the war on terror everyday, because this war is not about explosions (another 9/11) which we may or may not have prevented. It is about the destruction of the American economy, which seems to be proceeding quite well, and Al-Qaeda must be pleased. Quite convincing in my opinion.

Twenty Years Ago Today. . . Steve Winwood

Now my life has changed and now my eyes can see
Now I'm living on the morning side
Now I'm letting all the sunlight into me
Now I'm free

And I know I'll never pass that way again
That dark journey to the morning side
On the morning side I feel my life begin
Let's begin

         -Steve Winwood The Morning Side from Roll With it (1988)

Remember the days when TV was filled with Michelob commercials featuring the likes of Phil Collins, Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood? Those were the days when music was ruled by class A musicians, usually associated with the Princes Trust. I first heard Winwood from the 1986 Back in the High Life album (probably with a little help from 21 Jump Street). It was the first complete album I was fascinated with from a musical point of view. So, in the summer of 1988, I was excited by Winwood's next release, Roll With It. I remember being in Chicago the week after the album's release, and Winwood's face was plastered on every block, while the radio constantly played cuts from this masterpiece. I considered going to see his performance at Riverfest on July 15th, while friends suggested I check out Sting on July 11th. I didn't make it to either show - a regret of mine. Only a month later, I would listen to The Police and hear Sting truly for the first time, and my interest in music would not slow down after that.

I often forget about this record, and then I take a listen and I'm always struck by what an awesome work it is. Synth-driven pop, with Winwood's early R&B influence. It's one of those great "night" albums, chronicling a night of celebrating life, with its explicit imagery of night and morning. Holding On and The Morning Side are possibly the best songs of Winwood's career. The album as a whole belongs on any list of classic albums, exemplifying the magic found in what I think was the high point in music history, 1988-1992.

Random Notes

The 4G ipod finally died, so now its been replaced with the 6G 160GB "classic" ipod. Its nice to have color, video and room for my entire music collection, plus DVDs. I'm not completely impressed with what they've done to the screen, its too dark to see when the backlight is off, and they now have this screensavers that puts up the clock instead of the current song playing, which I don't like at all.

The Swiss Army Knife turns 111 today. For the last 25 years, hardly a day has gone by that I don't have one on me. Usually the Huntsman, but I also have the Mechanic and the Cybertool 41.


Gorbachev recently stated that he thinks the US is trying to start a new war with Russia. Perhaps we are not out of the 20th century chaos yet. I was recently watching a History Channel program about the Dark Ages, which theorized that even with our contemporary advancements, the 20th century could one day be seen as a "dark age" in history, given the amount of conflict and violence experienced.

Fear of a Blank Planet

Ok, I finally found time to listen to one of the most anticipated albums of 2007 - Porcupine Tree's Fear of A Blank Planet. Porcupine Tree follows the 20th century progressive lineage from Genesis, Pink Floyd, Marillion, through Dream Theater and they have taken progressive from the late neo-melodic into a 21st century postmodern progressive. The textures of their musical landscape are layers that are chaotic and dynamic, revealing a visceral complexity. Heavy, dark, and ethereal at the same time. Like the other great progressive albums of 2007, Marillion's Somewhere Else and Dream Theater's Systematic Chaos, this album is completely immersive. The music pulls you into a new world, where you want to stay and explore for a while. Like the aforementioned albums, this is one where the "repeat" button is required. The core of the album is Anesthetize, an 18 minute track that really shines as an example of modern progressive rock.

The themes of modern ennui found here are not new, going as far back as Baudelaire, although some of the technological aspects are new. The blankness of Generation X was a realized concept circa 1980, and further popularized by Douglas Coupland in the early 90s. Writing about teen angst is shaky ground for anyone over the age of 22. Peart took a larger third person perspective with the Rush songs Subdivisions and The Pass. But, here Wilson takes a more precarious first person view. The lyrics seem somewhat simplistic - whether this is intentional as appropriate to the narrative character, I don't know. As another reviewer of this album noted, "Steven Wilson's skills as a producer, songwriter, and guitarist far surpass his skills as a lyricist. This album is weighed down by its mediocre lyrics." I have to agree. The imagery is a little too overt, it has no ambiguity to allow for multiple levels of interpretation. While, I get his point, I get hit with it a little too much - some things are best when they are not as explicit. Besides the simplicity, the contemporary references -ipod, xbox, Pearl Jam, etc - might give the album a dated point of view. But, besides these concerns, the album does explore interesting ground, themes that are worth repeatedly exploring in new light. Porcupine Tree provides this light with the "modernity" of their sound, and takes us into a new future as they lead the course of progressive music.

Traveling Music

In an effort to figure out just what CD's I would need if stranded on a desert island, I compiled this Top 40 list (ok, 42 - The smallest number I could stand). The order is generally correct, the closer to 1- the more accurate.


42. Radio KAOS- Roger Waters
41. Promised Land - Queensryche
40. The Unforgettable Fire - U2
39. Security - Peter Gabriel
38. The Dream of the Blue Turtles -Sting
37. Internal Exile - Fish
36.War - U2
35.Everything's Different Now - 'Til Tuesday
34.Synchronicity - The Police
33.Counterparts - Rush
32.Peter Gabriel III - Peter Gabriel
31.Nothing Like The Sun - Sting
30.Empire -Queensryche
29.Voices Carry - 'Til Tuesday
28.How We Live - How We Live
27. So - Peter Gabriel
26. Script for A Jester's Tear - Marillion
25. Momentary Lapse of Reason - Pink Floyd
24. Vigil in a Wilderness of Mirrors - Fish
23. Invisible Touch - Genesis
22. Ten - Pearl Jam
21. Hold Your Fire - Rush
20. Misplaced Childhood- Marillion
19. Roll With It - Steve Winwood
18. Reggata De Blanc - The Police
17. Awake - Dream Theater
16. Roll The Bones - Rush
15. Us - Peter Gabriel
14. Rattle & Hum - U2
13. Images & Words- Dream Theater
12. Ten Summoners Tales - Sting
11. Eye of the Hurricane - The Alarm
10. Fumbling Towards Ecstacy - Sarah Maclachlan
9. Holiday's in Eden - Marillion
8. The Wall - Pink Floyd
7. Passion - Peter Gabriel
6. Seasons' End - Marillion
5. Clutching at Straws - Marillion
4. Afraid of Sunlight - Marillion
3. Presto - Rush
2. The Soul Cages - Sting
1. Achtung Baby- U2

Ghost of a Chance

Rush @ Xcel Center - St Paul, MN - 2008.05.22

Its refreshing to go to a concert (particularly where the crowd is advanced in age) and be able to stand for the whole show without being told to sit down. Thursdays night's performance by RUSH was an excellent one. The guys returned to top form with more energy and a better set than their 2002 tour. Its good to see that they can still play a 3 Hour show.

The Good: Dreamline (lasers!) / Ghost of a Chance/ Subdivisions/ Witch Hunt/ No Working Man. [1]
The Bad: No Presto / Counterparts

Setlist:
Limelight /Digital Man /Ghost of A Chance/Mission/ Free Will/ The Main Monkey Business/ The Larger Bowl/ Red Barchetta/The Trees/Between The Wheels /Dreamline

Far Cry/Working Them Angels/ Armor and Sword/ Spindrift/ The Way The Wind Blows/ Subdivisions/Natural Science /Witch Hunt/ Malignant Narcissism -Drum Solo /Hope/ The Spirit of Radio/ 2112/ Tom Sawyer

One Little Victory /A Passage to Bangkok /YYZ






[1] Seriously, what kind of idiot calls up KQ after the show and complains that there was no Working Man. Its a crappy song that dates from before they were really "Rush" and its was played to death on the last tour.

Erotomania

Dream Theater @ The Myth - Maplewood, MN - 2008.05.12

Dream Theater's set for The Progressive Nation 2008 Tour is a tough one. Its short (90 minutes) and it consists of highly progressive selections, meaning it wasn't a simple accessible "song" show - it was a 90 minute workout. Given this level of difficulty, for them and the crowd, they performed flawlessly. They were right on, as tight as ever. This was perhaps the best drum work I've heard from Portnoy, a very intense solo - which I hope becomes documented on a future video release. This show proved the high level these guys have achieved in their craft.

Setlist
In the Presence of Enemies PT1 / Beyond This Life / Misunderstood / Forsaken / Never Enough / Erotomania / Voices / /The Ministry of Lost Souls / Metropolis-Learning to Live-The Crimson Sunset

Available Light

Play of light
A photograph
The way I used to be
Some half-forgotten stranger
Doesn't mean that much to me

Trick of light
Moving picture
Moments caught in flight
Make the shadows darker
Or the colors shine too bright

Oh the light can carry
All the visions of the sea
Oh the light can carry
All the images to me

Run to light from shadow
Sun gives me no rest
Promise offered in the east
Broken in the west
Chase the sun around the world
I want to look at life
In the available light

-RUSH - Available Light - Presto (1989)


Nevertheless, I'm certain that man will never give up true suffering, that is, chaos and destruction. Why, suffering is the only cause of consciousness
. . . The meaning of man's life consists in proving to himself every minute that he's a man and not a piano key.

- Dostoevsky


Last Book Read: What's It All About - Philosophy & The Meaning of Life - Julian Baggini



There are some who say reading a book like this is a waste of time. Beyond asking what someone knows about the particular book (nothing), I would argue that there is no more important question in all of human experience. There is no point to philosophy or anything else without addressing this question. As Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living." The first consideration is to determine if there is a meaning to life. If there isn't, we are left in a Schoepenhauer-esque world of nihilism, contemplating Camus' question - why don't we just commit suicide? Of course, nihilism doesn't hold up very well, and I doubt it has many adherents. Therefore, we are left with the question of what it is, or where it derives from. Bagginni presents the meaning of life from a humanist point of view, and he argues that this is really the only possibility. Even if we are the creations of a God, we still have to find this meaning for ourselves. His whole point is that this endeavor can be done without the need to rely on the spiritual. Secondly, he reduces the vagueness of this large question, into specific areas.

Baggini anticipates that some regard this as a waste of time, as they think the answer is simple. He replies by showing that the concept of Carpe Diem is not as simple as these "pub philosophers" think it is. He basically equates these people with those found in Kierkegaard's aesthetic stage. Living in the moment becomes unsatisfying because it is made up of unconnected moments. Life is a tragedy because it contains "the inevitability that even the most wonderful experiences cannot be held in our grasp but rather run through our fingers like water. Life is ultimately sad because we are doomed to lose the most valuable of times." He continues on to suggest "that the most intense aesthetic experiences actually have their power precisely because they remind us of our mortality [and they] make the transitory nature of existence evident and thus bring home to us the fact the very possibility of experience itself will come to an end." This profound version of Carpe Diem "draws a necessary link between the joy of the moment and the pain of its passing." So these moments show us the value of life, because moments of experience do have value, but in themselves they contain an emptiness and require a more substantial viewpoint to provide overall meaning.

There are others who think the search for meaning is a waste of time because it cannot be known, it is "opaque." Baggini concludes that even an unexamined life can be meaningful - it may contain elements of meaning - authenticity, love, aesthetic experience, happiness, altruism and success - without the person having actually thought about it. I believe that he is too generous to those who are non-philosophical about life. He even states that this shows "how unreflective much of humanity is." It may be true that they are living meaningful lives, at least on appearance. On the surface they may be, but if they haven't thought about it - have they done the work? It could just as easily be an accident. Without thinking about it, they haven't made the choices to reach their goals. Like doing anything else they may have a finished product, but without doing the construction of it, it seems somewhat empty. Of course the only missing piece is the simple attempt to think about it- to contemplate the possible alternatives. And to do this, Baggini has provided anyone with a good start by reviewing this book.

I'm not sure what viewpoint Baggini comes from, other than humanist. He references much from Sartre, although this is probably because it represents the best humanist viewpoints. However, he only sees authenticity as one of many components to a meaningful life. He also warns against"existential snobbery" of brooding too much over angst, and he downplays the significance of philosophy in examining life as "intellectual arrogance." He concludes, as others have, that meaning and morality are inseparable, and then claims that this is a problem for existentialists, because they "do not provide any guidance on what kinds of moral choices are morally acceptable." First, I think this is a flaw in the development of Existentialism, and it is unfortunate that Sartre did not deliver his promised Ethics before abandoning Existentialism, although, we are left with Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity. But, I would argue that the concept of authenticity entails morally justified behavior through responsibility, where integrity of the self is defined and developed through the awareness of freedom, both of the self and of the other. Therefore authenticity/morality/meaning are all intertwined. This is an area where Existentialism makes a break from other radical viewpoints and continues as a sustainable, coherent and justifiable philosophy. Individual relativists and rebels like Norman Mailer are the ones who are in this indefensible position, where anything can become one's project - even if it is evil and destructive. The arguments against transcendence rely on the historic wealth of thought from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus. So, it would seem to me that Existentialism has the most thorough of all humanistic viewpoints, and has yet to be superceded.

Exposing "Exposing 'Northern Exposure'"

Beyond Postmodernism? - Exposing "Northern Exposure"

A critical and philosophical appraisal of the function of
Intertextuality and Metanarratives in Universal's 'Northern Exposure'

Postmodern analysis of popular culture is all very interesting, but I wonder why after 40 years of such analysis, it can still only be communicated in hyper-technical language. We are living in a post-modern culture, constantly surrounded by it, but expressing it seems impossible without learning a foreign language. Anyway, I guess I'll stop reading this and pick up Heidegger - which would be just as easy, and then pull out the Northern Exposure Dvds. If anyone wants to translate this article into something that is more accessible, let me know.

Not Now John

"The problem with capitalism is that "man exploits man." The beauty of communism is that it is the other way around."

Here is one article detailing the latest spike in oil prices. As it notes, the oil companies have been getting tax breaks from the Bush administration, and yet we are getting gouged at the pump more than ever. It is not a case of drivers continuing to use more gas, thereby driving the prices up. The demand for gas dropped slightly over the last year. People in the oil industry are saying there is simply no explanation for the prices, all of the technical indicators are gone and there is just no control on the market Our inventory is the highest its been in many years. So, it seems to be a case of a really bad economy and a desire to continue record profits. This article also notes that most of the usual corrections don't seem to be there. A very weak dollar is part of the problem, but the speculators seem to be playing a big part. "Maybe its just greed." That seems to be a good explanation, with no good investment opportunities left, traders are trying to get rich off of oil, and that is going to have major ramifications.

Energy costs show were capitalism is a failure. Energy is one area that shouldn't be left to a free market, where some get rich and many get left out in the cold, literally. Besides destabilizing personal economics, this enormous jump in costs threatens the national and global economies, and since it doesn't seem to be easily replaceable, it threatens are national security and global security. I don't want to sound too MadMax here, but we have had a strong military presence in the Middle East for many decades, and I don't think that is a coincidence. We've known for 30 years that oil will become a problem and quickly destabilizes our domestic and foreign interests. But instead of following a plan of conservation and developed alternatives, we have successfully ignored the problem.

The word Nationalization is a very scary concept for the free market conservatives. Yet, every time the corporate sector crashes because of immense greed and fraud, the government has to foot the bill - which means we, the taxpayers, end up funding this robbery. The S&L bailout alone cost us $400 Billion It seems that Europe has realized the need for Nationalization, and this is a concept we should further investigate. Not only would we quit being robbed of public (taxpayer) money , but the nation as a whole could benefit from the profit. We should start by Nationalizing the energy industry - yes that means taking oil off the free market. Besides stabilizing the economy, we would increase national security and global security, and profit could be funneled into R & D for alternative energy sources, thereby increasing future stability and security. At the very least, there should be a legal end to speculation.

Just how bad does the economy have to get for Ben Stein (who recently said we should be thanking the oil companies) to publicly admit that the only solution is going to be taxing the rich? That realization must have been a painful experience for him. At least he realizes that a significant part of the problem is the weakening dollar. This is an idea that has escaped intellectually-challenged people like Sean Hannity, who seems to still think the economy is great and that the value of U.S. currency is irrelevant to a recession. Of course he only says that because Bush bears the responsibility, and if a democrat was in office, his viewpoint would be quite reversed.

Dancing in Berlin

MACLEOD
How do you fight such a savage?

RAMIREZ
With heart, faith and steel.



Some people think the future means the end of history. Well, we haven't run out of history quite yet.
- James T Kirk



Top 10 Cold War Songs:

1. Berlin - Marillion
2. Games in Germany - How We Live
3. 99 Luftbaloons - Nena
4. Russians - Sting
5.Wind of Change - The Scorpions
6. Heresy -Rush
7. The Tide is Turning - Roger Waters
8. Seconds -U2
9. Distant Early Warning -Rush
10.Under Lock and Key - Rush

And, finally, best Cold War album:
Achtung Baby - U2, not for what it said about the Cold War, but for what it said about the postmodern place that was left after it.

The Cold War: A New History

Last Book Read: The Cold War: A New History - John Lewis Gaddis



"The world, I am quite sure is a better place, for the conflict having been fought in the way that it was and won by the side that won it." It "was a necessary contest that settled fundamental issues once and for all."

The tragedy of World War II was "victory would require the victors to either cease to be who they were or to give up much of what they had hoped, by fighting the war, to attain."

Like all wars, the Cold War contained a conflict between appearance and reality. In reality it was possible that we were always going to win the Cold War, but it did not always appear that way. There were times that the influence of the Soviet Empire seemed unstoppable. Communism not only had an appeal for poor countries, but for intellectuals, like Sartre, in developed countries. It seemed that communism was a new level of progression in human history, just as capitalism has progressed beyond feudalism. Gaddis acknowledges that the world viewed the World Wars as caused by capitalism, and that U.S. policy had to integrated elements of Socialism to reduce the "harshness" of capitalism. This capitalism promoted freedom, but at the cost of equality, which communism was able to offer.

I don't think that the intellectuals championing the cause of communism were necessarily wrong. I would argue that the Cold War, Like World War II before it, was a fight against authoritarianism, not fundamentally of economic theory. The communism offered failed because of evil and corrupt governments. The human rights abuses committed by Communist governments far outweighed any advancements of their secular progressivism. Because of this it a was an imperfect solution, and the only alternative is still an imperfect capitalism, as the problems of disparity in the free world are even more evident today than they were in the 1940s. However, the Soviet accusations of American imperialism were of course absurd, at least in relation to themselves. Soviet influence over their satellite countries reveled an extreme level of imperialism.

So, besides the fact that we had more freedom and integrity on our side, it was likely that by 1950, when the arms race escalated, we were inevitably going to win militarily. There was however, a perilous road to navigate. First, the critical factor in outlasting the Cold War was not to trigger a nuclear hot war. And , as there were times when nuclear force was threatened over quite insignificant issues, its somewhat amazing that we didn't fall into this trap and forfeit the entire game. Second, we had to follow the path of containment by playing this tug-of-war game and constantly applying to pressure to the outward expanding East Bloc. While performing this constant battle, we had to be careful not to destroy ourselves by overextending our means and becoming off-balance. The threat of economic implosion was an ever-existing challenge. After the Vietnam war had exhausted our military resources, we began to lose ground in the 1970s. The Soviets , experiencing a better economic situation through oil exports, were able to spend a higher percentage of their economy on their military. They had closed the gap and had overtaken us in several areas of strategic deployment.

Finally, numerous factors converged in the 1980s. The Soviets over-extended themselves in Afghanistan and Africa. Civil unrest exploded in Eastern Europe, under the influence of the Pope and Solidarity. And Thatcherism and Reaganism accelerated the weakening of the foundations of the Soviet Bloc. Reagan decided to play a risky game and move the Cold War into an endgame state. Once again, I think we experienced a bit of luck, as this gambit did pay off, and the inevitable implosion of the Soviet Union occurred sooner than hoped.

And so we won, but I think we did pay a big price. The world would never again be what it was in pre-war days. It had become a very dangerous place. At home, the freedoms we were fighting to protect, had to be partially given up. These misfortunes are continuing to invade our society as we enter into 21st century wars. During the Cold War, things appeared to be black and white, right versus wrong, and East versus West, had well defined boundaries. But in the aftermath, things are not as clear. Policies that we once necessary for our survival, are now possibly more detrimental to our future existence as a world leader of integrity.

The Philosophy of Film Noir

(Recent) book read - The Philosophy of Film Noir, edited by Mark T Conrad


Despite its decline as a continuing genre, Film Noir has had a lasting and significant effect on film. This book, from the University of Kentucky Press, is the best of the Philosophy & Popular Culture series that I have come across, and I can only comment at present on a few of the very deep threads found in this volume. Beyond the interesting use of expressionist cinematography, film noir is fascinating for what it can tell us about the culture from which it came.

The 20th century saw a tremendous change in human society. First, the the advancement of science led to Nietzsche's predicted "death of God" when our scientific values clashed with our superstitions, leading to disorientation. Without a solid foundation for values, tradition lost its meaning. Furthermore, lessons from Kierkegaardian subjectivism and Einsteinian relativism destroyed the possibility of a neutral or objective viewpoint. Secondly, World War II and the following Cold War brought humanity to new levels of destructive behavior and totalitarianism. The victory of WWII was not a complete victory and it was quickly realized that we were less safe than we were before the war. The resulting possibility of instant global war brought on severe anxiety. The European reaction was the development of Existentialism, as well as other connected philosophies such as absurdism. Here in America though the tradition has been to continue on with a sense of optimism (at least superficially). Hence the dread and anxiety of the postwar age was relegated to places like film noir. Thirdly, the economic surge following the war led to a new consumer culture, and this mass production resulted in alienation of people from their communities. The new urban landscape became a Dark City, cold, lifeless and unconcerned with the individual, a land of isolation and anonymity.

R. Barton Palmer discusses this postwar anxiety as the "dark mirror theory", asserting that film noir is a reflection of the bleak national mood. This mood was also manifested in the increase of psychotherapy, pop psychology, and pseudo-science such as UFO sightings. There was also an increased attendance in church, which had been declining in the earlier part of the century, and a Spiritual Revival involving new religious superstars like Billy Graham, as well as a syncretic national religion. Left with no security and an uncertain future, postwar America experienced a desperate hope of escape.

Escape is central to film noir. Stranded in the impersonal city, one is left with a conflict between appearance and reality. Things are not what they seem. People are not who they seem and intentions are often disguised and dark. Culture is transitory, change is constant. Without an ethical system as a reference, decisions become the responsibility of the individual and choice becomes significant. The maze has evolved from classical, being escapable by faith, through mannerist, escapable by reason, to the rhizome, as defined by Umberto Eco [1]. The rhizome has no beginning or end, it has no entrance or exit, no perimeter and no center but always a middle. There is no escape from it. This is the postmodern maze. All that remains is to find meaning in a potentially fatalistic universe. This is the struggle dramatically presented in film noir, although possibly less optimistic than the attitude found in Existentialism.

Perhaps the best postmodern work of recent times is Lost. Here, escape does seem truly impossible. The odds are continually being stacked against the survivors. Even if they escape the island, it is a futile endeavor and they will need to escape back. Beyond their current situation larger forces are at work and, more immediate, they can't escape from themselves, or the past (or the future for that matter). No one is who they seem, alliances are continually changing, and as events progress even individual characters switch from one point of view to another. Alan Woolfolk discusses the nature of time in film noir, asserting that it "merges narrative space, time, and events in such a way as to give priority to time past - someone (or something) is always coming 'out of the past.'" He continues on to say "film noir threatens to subvert the very concept of time, to obliterate the distinction between past, present, future, by placing individuals at the mercy of unknown forces that not only negate simple notions of making a clean break with the past but also deny the very notion of a coherent narrative character development." This description seems quite a propos of Lost to me.

I would argue that Film Noir was the beginning of postmodern film and is therefore tied linearly to our current postmodern culture. It also inseparable from Existentialism, as it comes from the same origins, explores the same themes and reaches the same conclusions.

[1] Discussed by Jerold J. Abrams in the chapter "From Sherlock Holmes to the Hard Boiled Detective in Film Noir"

Everthing is Miscellaneous

(Recent) Book read - Everything is Miscellaneous : The Power of the New Digital Disorder




David Weinberger's work is an excellent look at the current state of informational organization and the history of the philosophy of information. This book is a great read, and really shows the underlying significance that is forming from the information we are producing.

Weinbeger chronicles the development of organization. The first order is the real world, things can physically be organized, but there has to be a system, as things can only be in one place. The next step was the second order - the paper order, where lists were maintained detailing the locations of thins, such as a card catalog. But this systems has its limitations, things can be cross-referenced to have multiple locations on a list, but the physical limitations of paper make it hard to change and hard to search. The periodic table, for example could be reformulated in many different ways, but this was not possible until technology had a way of instantly reorganizing the data. The third order - the digital order is an advanced evolution of this system. Information is made into bits and then thrown into a miscellaneous pile. It can then later be sorted in any way the user wants, making searching easy and the results much more useful.

One of the latest improvements is the use of tags and labels. These provide metadata that can be searched and cataloged. This metadata becomes data of its own, and conversely data becomes metadata. For example searching on the name of a Shakepeare play (metadata) results in the text of the play, but if you want to learn the name of the play, then you could search by using text from it. Through the use of tags, things are organized as they're searched for. Information is only useful because of what it leaves out, as Weinberger says " the explicit diminishes the implicit". So maps such as Google Earth, become much more useful because they can be customized to include whats important, and exclude non-relevant locations. Music playlists have become the 21st century "mix tape", but the playlist itself is only metadata - it only points to the music that is the data itself. But, as the mix tape had meaning, there is also meaning in whats include in the playlist.

The implicit is the context, or meaning, of the data. The development of technology has been the externalization of human abilities, books and computers have externalized memory, and now information has externalized meaning. Weinberger notes that making something explicit is often difficult as we have to oversimplify to make things fit. "My lists of interests at Friendster is not really a list of my interests. It's a complex social artifact that results from my goals, self-image, and anticipations of how other people will interpret my list." An interesting problem that most of us have encountered on-line. His solution is finding the balance between implicit and explicit. As our data is becoming more meaningful, we can hope that this balance will become easier. As he shows, we have entered an era where small improvements to our on-line experience are having a dramatic impact on the usefulness of digital information.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience

Last Book Read : The Varieties of Scientific Experience - Carl Sagan



Back in 1999, I was absolute stunned when I heard about the Great American Think-off. The essay competition for that year was: Which is more dangerous, Science or Religion? Of course, I was enraged that the winner declared science more dangerous, but I was even more appalled that any organization that considers itself intellectual would possibly be able to reach that conclusion. The reason given - that science is blindly accepted by people without question- is the very antithesis of science, and obviously the writer didn't understand the concepts of verifiability and coherence. I think a prerequisite should have been a reading of Carl Sagan.

Sagan's 1985 lectures on natural theology examine just how much evidence there is for the existence of God. He asks why a divine creator did not leave a message in holy texts - an equation of some sort, that when eventually understood would provide evidence of that creator. Our investigation so far has come up empty, and if we simply haven't advanced enough to read the sign, then in the absence of all other evidence, we shouldn't concern ourselves with such matters until we do find it. As for verifiable evidence, there appears to be none, even though people do seem to have religious experiences. Just because there has been millions of UFO experiences, there has not been one trace of compelling evidence, and we would be reckless to assume their existence at this point.

Sagan's use of the Drake equation puts the possible number of civilizations in the galaxy between 1 (us) and one million. Now, there is an immense distance between 0 and 1, and a similar enormity between 1 and many (2 or more). Given the lack of evidence for a second civilization, like the search for God, it seems premature to me to think that there are other civilizations. If we were to discover one, then the likelihood of finding numbers 3, 4, etc would go up dramatically. If we look at the high end of the Drake equation, then the next nearest civilization would be a few hundred light-years away. And, if they happen to be in the vicinity of Polaris, then they will soon be treated to the music of the Beatles, and we can expect a response, possibly an aesthetic critique, in about 860 years. Although, I am on the side of those who think that we should not be broadcasting our existence to the rest of the galaxy. We are ill equipped to handle negotiating with other civilizations and until we have a better understanding of our place in the universe, hiding may be the safest course of action. The prevailing notion is that other civilizations will be far more advanced than us, and therefore will have a more mature moral nature, but I think this is also premature to consider. In fact, I think its possible we haven't encountered transmissions from others because we may be the oldest one. Even though life developed rather quickly once Earth formed, 500 million years, it may be the case that the chemical compositions hadn't reached a critical mass until there was 10 Billion years of stellar evolution to produce the complexity necessary for life.

In terms of the anthropic principle, it seems as though we are in a special time. We have finally reached an adolescence, on our journey to cosmic self-realization, as we begin to understand the universe and our place in it. It may be that this window of time is more important than Sagan realized. A recent article in Scientific America proposes that as time progresses, the universe will expand so much that everything outside of our local Galactic group will be to far away for light emission to reach us. An event horizon will form around us and all information from outside will be inaccessible. The Universal history that we can now look at will be forever lost, and the knowledge of its very existence will be gone.

Sagan notes a reference from Dostoevsky - "So long as man remains free, he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as someone to worship." The will to believe, the want to believe is very strong in people. The burden of existence is then removed from one's shoulders and left to the creator. The question of what to do is then answered by the directives of the divine. Besides this psychological motivation, there is also a political one. Religion provides a sense of contentment, and this is a useful tool for the ruling elite. People are pacified by the concepts of an afterlife and divine justice. The status quo can be maintained easier, of course the danger is that real injustices are not fought. Another quote is presented by Pierre Simon from The System of the World - "far from us be the dangerous maxim that it is sometimes useful to mislead, to deceive, and to enslave mankind to ensure their happiness." He asks why isn't there a commandment to educate oneself. It would seem that intellectual education and scientific awareness of reality are not something valued by religion.

The crucial point in the Drake equation is the longevity of Technical civilizations. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. The difference for humanity is that we have means of our own destruction, which only increases the chances of our extinction. In reference to nuclear weapons, Sagan asks "where are the religions?" There seems to be no larger moral question than our continued survival. Any other endeavor - goodwill to our fellow humans, the elimination of suffering, moral and intellectual development as a species, are completely futile unless we contain our internal destructive tendencies. Not only has religion done very little to prevent catastrophe, but has in some ways increased its likelihood. The conservative, fundamentalist government that has been in power for the last 30 years is ready to use WMDs in the name of their religion, to bring about God's plan prophesied in Revelation. Sagan points out that the non-religious state of the Soviet Union is less inconsistent with their policies of WMDs.

So, what kind of God could exist? Professor Sagan notes that not all of God's qualities can be true. God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient or not benevolent. An immortal creator that would create beings and subject them to suffering and death would be apparently cruel. If he allows civilizations to be regularly destroyed in galactic explosions, then he is at least incompetent. Furthermore, he remarks that the God portrayed by religions is really too small for the universe we know. He is more the God of a planet. He notes that Christians were called "atheists" by the Romans because they did not worship a real god. Something for current to Christians to remember. A more accurate God would be of a pantheist nature, as seen in the ideas of Spinoza and Einstein, something related to the universe and the physical laws governing it.

I think the best response a theologian could enact would be the Kierkegaardian existential leap of faith, and not try to justify their beliefs rationally. Sagan does acknowledge that religion could exist purely in this realm, but then they should not challenge the findings of science and make claims that our ultimately false. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him on the problem of evil - I think it's still conceivable that this is the best of all possible worlds, but only if we realize how important our own future is, as he argues.

I have been asked many times why an atheist would earn a degree in Religious Studies. A question that, to me, seems like an easy one. First, it would be impossible to study the entire sphere of humanity - philosophy, art, politics and history itself without an understanding of God and religion. Secondly, it would be just as hard to understand those disciplines external to humanity without the same ideas. The works of Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking constantly refer to the concept of God- it is inseparable. I'll end with a quote about professor Sagan from the foreword, "he took the idea of God so seriously that it had to pass the most rigorous standards of scrutiny . . . His argument was not with God but with those who believed our understanding of the sacred had been completed."